Between DIAMOND VERSI Claimant
And (1) KEBLE COLLEGE (2) ROGER BODEN Respondents

Witness Statement of Roger Boden (pp Keble College), 13th December 2004

I Roger Boden, of Keble College will say as follows:-

1. I am employed by the College as Bursar. I took up my appointment on 1st July 2000 having been, since November 1993, employed as the College's Development Director. I was myself an undergraduate at Keble between 1965 and 1968.

2. The role of the Bursar is defined by Statute as follows:

"The Bursar shall under the direction of the Governing Body have the care of the property, income and expenditure of the College and shall be responsible for the domestic economy of the College and the proper keeping of its accounts".

3. The Claimant was employed as the College's Accountant from 6th March 1989 to 2nd April 2004. He was dismissed by reason of redundancy,

4. For the sake of background - Keble College was founded in 1870 and is one of the largest colleges in the University of Oxford. The College employs approximately 50 academic staff and 85 non-academic staff. It has 440 undergraduates and 220 graduate students. The College was originally founded as a men's college in the Anglican tradition. It became co-educational in 1979. The composition of its student body, academic staff and non-academic staff is multi-racial, multi-faith and multi-national,

5. In 2003 the Accounts team consisted of the Accountant (the Claimant), the Assistant Accountant (Julie Hernandez) and 3 Accountant Assistants. In May 2003 I agreed with the Claimant that I would undertake a review of the salaries of the Accounts Department that autumn. I began that process in November 2003. As part of the review I analysed the tasks undertaken by the Accounts Department, made comparisons with other colleges and discussed my findings with the Auditors. Although the Claimant had initially cooperated with the review, When he realised that it included a detailed analysis of tasks he became obstructive and in particular refused to discuss his own workload with me.

6. My report with recommendations was presented to the College's Finance Committee at its meeting on 14th January 2004. There is a copy of that report in the Bundle of Documents. The conclusion and my recommendations were that the accounting and financial control function was overstaffed and that a team of four would suffice. I recommended consultation with all the accounts staff on the proposal that

a. The posts of the Accountant and Assistant Accountant be disestablished.

b. A new post of Financial Controller be established.

c. the re-distribution of tasks be along the lines set out in an appendix to the report.

7. Finance Committee agreed that Consultation should proceed. On 14th January I e-mailed the Claimant asking him to meet me with the Assistant Accountant at 9.45am on the 15th January 2004 and with the rest of the team at 10.00am. This was the start of the consultation process.

8. The meetings had to be re-arranged because the Claimant did not come in to work until lunchtime on the 15th January. When the Claimant arrived I went to talk to him about the consultation process. He refused to talk to me and put his hands over his ears. Eventually he agreed that he would read my submission to the Committee and that I could talk to the accounts staff.

9. I then met the other members of the accounts staff and discussed the proposal with them. They were understandably concerned as to their positions. Later in the day I spoke to the Claimant again. He said that he had read my paper and would be seeing his Solicitor. He said he would charge his fees to the College. I said I could not authorise that. The Claimant refused to discuss the subject with me further at that point.

10. I met With the Claimant on 20th January to discuss a note that the Claimant had prepared. He stated that:

a. He wanted the chance to present his case to the Finance Committee. I told him he would have this opportunity.

b. He wanted to be accompanied at the Finance Committee meeting, I told him that this was unusual because we were discussing organisation and staffing - not individuals. I told him I would raise the question with the Warden.

c. He understood that the Assistant Accountant had been told she would get the Job of Financial Controller. I told him that this was not true and that if the restructuring proceeded we would initially consider all internal applications and then, and only if necessary, seek external candidates,

d. He believed the restructuring was a charade and he would not be applying for the new post. I told him that it was not a charade and he was very well qualified and encouraged him to apply, He asked me when he needed to decide. I told him no decision about the restructuring would be made until after the consultation process had been completed and Finance Committee had considered the matter at its meeting on 4th February, If Finance Committee decided that we should proceed with the restructuring that would be the time for him to tell us whether he wished to apply for the new post.

I asked him whether my analysis of the tasks in the accounts department was correct and he replied "spot on". The Claimant e-mailed his note to the Governing Body on 20th January with a copy to me.

11. I had a further consultation meeting with the Claimant on 26th January 2004, He said it was clear that the re-structuring would go ahead and that the Consultation process was a charade. I again said this was not the case. He then said that he did not intend to apply for the post of Financial Controller and asked me to put forward financial terms for a redundancy settlement. I agreed to prepare calculations as to redundancy.

12. The Claimant then said I might not be aware that since 1996 his salary had been enhanced by 1.35% to reflect the fact that when the College pension scheme closed he was required to move to USS rather than OSPS. I was indeed not aware of this.

13. I met the Claimant on 29th January to put forward draft redundancy proposals in accordance with his request. I asked the Claimant if there were any other posts available within the College for which he might wish to be considered, He made no suggestions and agreed that there were none,

14. I gave him a draft of the section of my note to the Finance Committee setting out my findings arising from the consultation process. I told him that if he wished to make representations to the Finance Committee he should let me have them in writing by 2nd February and could then attend the meeting of the Committee to answer questions on his submission. But consideration of this issue was postponed because the Claimant initiated a Formal Grievance on 3rd February 2004. The whole review and restructuring process was immediately suspended pending the outcome of the Grievance hearing.

15. The Claimant submitted the Formal Grievance to the Warden (the Head of the College). The Warden asked Dr Tim Jenkinson to hear the grievance which was in two parts:

a. that the proposed restructuring was unworkable; was not cost effective; was without rational basis and was deliberately biased against the Claimant.

b. That I was discriminating against the Claimant because of his race/ethnic origin

16. At this stage I took no further part in any proceedings because of this Grievance. I am aware that Dr Jenkinson recommended on 25th February 2004:

a. That the restructuring was workable;

b. that there was no bias against the Claimant;

c. the claim that I had discriminated against the Claimant was without merit.

17. I am aware that the Claimant was dissatisfied with the outcome of the Grievance as determined by Dr Jenkinson and that he appealed. That Appeal was heard by Mr Edwin Peel.

18. Mr Peel dismissed that Appeal on 26th March 2004 on the basis that there had not been unfair treatment of the Claimant nor any racial discrimination.

19. The Grievance having been rejected, the College resumed consideration of the restructuring proposal. Finance Committee met on 30th March. The Claimant was invited to attend but declined. His submission was considered by the Committee, as was a submission from Julie Hernandez. After a thorough review the Committee agreed that the restructuring should proceed.

20. The Warden wrote and emailed the Claimant (who had been on sick-leave since 23rd February but had attended at College for the Grievance and Appeal hearings) and Julie Hernandez on 31st March 2004 to inform them that the restructuring would take place and that the posts of Accountant and Assistant Accountant were no longer required. The letters gave both the Claimant and Julie Hernandez notice of termination by reason of redundancy and asked them to confirm by close of business on 1st April whether they wished to be considered for the post of Financial Controller. The letters included a job description and further particulars of the post.

21. The Claimant did not apply for the post of Financial Controller. Julie Hernandez did. On 2nd April 2004 Dr Reinert, Professor Oldfield and I Interviewed Julie Hernandez. After the interview, and with no other internal applicants, the post was offered to Julie Hernandez and she accepted.

22. The Claimant replied by letter to the Warden. He did not appeal the decision to make him redundant. He stated that he did not intend to apply for the position of Financial Controller. He questioned the sums payable in his redundancy package.

23. The College subsequently had correspondence with the Claimant's solicitors as to his redundancy package. The Claimant through his solicitors then raised further issues which had not been the subject of the redundancy discussions. This correspondence is in the Bundle of Documents.

24. I do not accept that the redundancy was a sham. This was a genuine redundancy arising from a restructuring that is resulting in savings to the College of about £50,000 p.a. The Claimant was invited, repeatedly, to apply for the new post of Financial Controller but chose not to. My working assumption was that had he done so he would, as the most experienced and senior member of the accounts team, have been appointed (though the decision would have been made by the interview panel of which I was but one member). The appointment would have involved a change in the Claimant's Grade and salary to that for the comparable post in comparable colleges. I assume that he did not apply because he did not wish to be appointed on these terms, which he felt to be humiliating. Whatever the reasons, his not applying denied to the College the possibility of mitigating the effect of his redundancy by appointing him to the new post.

25. The staffing of the Accounts Department was reviewed again in November 2004. It was then recognised that, with all the efficiency gains that had been identified in the 2003 review and implemented since the restructuring, the accounting function was still over-staffed. Accordingly from January 2005 the Financial Controller will, at her own suggestion, be moving to a four-day week. This will result in a further saving to the College and is further evidence that the restructuring and resulting redundancy was not a sham.

26. For the sake of completeness, it was part of the Claimant's complaint that I am not a trained accountant and that it will be impossible for me to perform the additional accounting tasks that have been transferred to me. He has argued that because I could not do the job I would have to outsource the work which would cost more. I have a first class Honours Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from the University of Oxford. I worked for 18 years for a merchant bank, was a member of its Credit Control Committee for 10 years and the Managing Director of its Private Banking Subsidiary for 3 years. I passed the accountancy papers that formed part of the Institute of Bankers qualification. I am not a qualified accountant but I have extensive experience of analysing and working with management and statutory accounts. I developed the form of management accounts that is now used by the College. I am perfectly capable of discharging my responsibility for the proper keeping of the accounts and have not outsourced any work, nor do I Intend to. The 2004 Statutory Accounts were approved without qualification and submitted to the University on 12th November 2004, a month ahead of the deadline and earlier than most other colleges. In the process of preparing the accounts I undertook a major review of our accounting practices in respect of gifts and endowments. These resulted in significant revisions, all of which were approved by the auditors.

27. Many of the matters raised in the originating application to the Tribunal were first raised either as part of the Claimant's Grievance or in the originating application to the Tribunal. My evidence on these follows.

28. The Bursar needs a private office because of the nature of the work. In early 2000 (a few months before I became Bursar) as part of a reorganisation of the administrative offices the Bursar's office had been relocated to a room that included a through-route from one section of the Bursary to the accounts department. After consulting with the Claimant I blocked up the connecting doorway so that it ceased to be a through route. This was done in August 2000 with his agreement. After the Auditors' Investigation in January 2003 (see 43 below) I raised with the Claimant the question whether, in order to improve Communication between us, the connecting doorway should be re-opened. He said he thought that would not be necessary.

29. Car parking in the College grounds is in extremely short supply. The only parking available is 16 spaces in the car park plus overflow space in the college quadrangles (parking in which creates both an eyesore and the potential for accidents). In 2000 I introduced a permit parking system and persuaded the Fellows that the car park should not be exclusively for their use but should also be available to certain senior members of non-academic staff, including the Claimant. Quite regularly I have to ask Fellows, other members of staff, contractors and visitors to move their cars when they are parked inappropriately in the quadrangles. I recall one occasion when I asked the Claimant to move his car for this reason.

30. Because of the size and cost of projects we undertake at the College I developed a system of project tracking. This involves a tracking form which included a box for sign-off by the Accountant. On 31st March 2003 the Claimant emailed me saying he was not happy to sign-off on projects when he had not been involved in the decisions regarding them, adding that he was not asking to be involved. In response to this the tracking form was amended.

31. The Auditors recommended in their 2002 Report to Management that routine remote access to the accounting system be discontinued. Finance Committee asked the Deputy Bursar to look into the recommendation. He did so in consultation with the Claimant and the IT Officer and in conclusion confirmed the Auditors' recommendation. Finance Committee accepted his conclusions and agreed that routine remote access should be discontinued. I do not believe that this curtailing of remote access has had any adverse impact on the operational efficiency of the financial control function.

32. Until July 2001 Dr Jenkinson held the post of Investment Director with executive responsibility for the management of the College's investment assets. Part of this task involved the periodic preparation of valuations. In July 2001 the College created an Investment Advisory Committee and the post of Investment Director was abolished. Instead the Bursar took on the executive responsibility. I asked the Claimant to take on the task of preparing portfolio valuations. This was within the terms of his job description and could easily be carried out within the normal working day. The Claimant wanted extra payment but I would not agree. He refused to do the work. I repeated the request on several occasions but I did not want to see the disagreement escalate and so did not insist on it.

33. In March 2003 there were loans outstanding to 6 members of staff (of which 3 were to the Claimant's staff and one to an employee who had been a member of his staff when the loan was made). I had not been particularly aware of these arrangements, which were administered by the Claimant. When he consulted me about a proposed loan of £4,000 to a member of staff to pay off credit card debts incurred on holiday I expressed concern that this was not an appropriate use of College funds. He told me that he had been authorised by my predecessor to approve loans up to £2,000. I accepted that if he had a discretionary limit it was for him to make the decision within that limit but said that I would not in this case authorise a loan in excess of his limit, given the purpose for which it was requested. The Claimant authorised a £2,000 loan which is still extant. I also said that I thought Finance Committee should review the arrangements for loans to staff. The Claimant disagreed. Nevertheless, with input from him I submitted a report to Finance Committee as a result of which new procedures were agreed.

34. The Claimant was on the email distribution list for the Finance Committee although he was not a member of it. I stopped sending the Claimant draft minutes for comment as he was not at meetings and so could not comment on their accuracy. He continued to receive the approved minutes.

35. In April 2003 a member of the accounts team gave notice of her resignation. On 23nd April the Claimant advised me of this and also said that he had identified a replacement, Hien Le, who was at the time one of two Assistant Hall Supervisors. He had already spoken to Ms Le but had not discussed the possible move with her manager or the Domestic Bursar. I raised the question whether a replacement was needed. The Claimant insisted that one was and I accepted this. I asked for job descriptions to be produced for all the posts in the department. There was a problem with Ms Le's immediate transfer because the other Assistant Hall Supervisor had just handed in her notice, the Hall Supervisor was going on holiday and immediately on his return we would be entering the financially vital summer conference season, in which the Hall (where all meals are served) plays a central role. I sought a compromise that would have postponed Ms Le's transfer until the end of September. The Claimant would not accept this and Ms Le transferred at the end of June.

36. I was approached by our Auditors (Grant Thornton) to see if there was a possibility of their making a claim on our behalf to recover VAT that might have been overpaid in the early 1990s. I agreed a contingency fee in line with, though somewhat below, the going rate for such speculative claims. In the event the College recovered over £100,000 from this exercise.

37. A College Ball is held every other year. The event is run by the Ball Committee, consisting entirely of students. I encourage them to seek advice from the administrative units of the College. If the students did not ask the Claimant to assist them that was their concern. The Claimant did not complain to me that they had not done so,

38. The pay rises of the accounts team were discussed with the Claimant. In the July 2003 salary round I made it clear that no out-of-the ordinary rises would be awarded to members of the accounts team pending completion of the Autumn review that I had agreed to undertake.

39. In September 2003 in the course of the year-end audit I met the Auditors at their request to review a number of issues. I assumed they had already discussed these with the Claimant. It was their meeting, not mine, and their agenda, of which I had no advance notice.

40. I had been concerned about the lack of an internal audit procedure. This was highlighted by problems in the kitchen in spring 2002 when we discovered (by accident) that College property was being misappropriated. I felt that we should carry out internal audits of departments and had on several occasions discussed with the Claimant the possibility of his undertaking them. He initially agreed but on reflection felt it would be inappropriate. We therefore agreed that a rolling programme of internal audits should be undertaken by the external Auditors as part of their year-end audit. The Claimant arranged for Grant Thornton to conduct an internal audit of the catering function in September 2003. However no preparatory work had been carried out or advance notice given and the kitchens were at their busiest because of the conference season. So I decided to postpone the exercise.

41. The College has long had a system of holiday request forms. These are not always filled in by senior personnel but the College's regulations and invariable practice are that anyone intending to take holiday must request permission from his or her manager. On the occasion in question (19th November 2003), following some exchanges on the subject of the hours he was working, the Claimant announced that he was taking the next day off. I asked him to book it as holiday.

42. In December 2003 contractors finished a new bike park at the back of the College. I invited those directly involved in the project to celebrate the completion and congratulate the contractors on a job well done by having a drink with them on site. About a dozen people were invited - chiefly grounds and maintenance staff plus the Warden and the Development Office.

43. In the Autumn of 2002 the Auditors recommended, in their annual report to management, that we should discontinue the practice of allowing remote access to the accounting system. The Claimant opposed this recommendation, but he gave no convincing business reason for his opposition. This made me uneasy. I consulted the Auditors and they recommended a discrete examination of the accounts that would, assuming all was well, set my mind at ease, We agreed that the least disruptive time to run a check would be on 2nd-3rd January 2003 when the Accounts Department was due to be closed. This exercise, however, required password access to the accounting system, something which I at the time did not have. (When I was first appointed Bursar I did ask the Claimant to arrange for me to have access to the accounting system but this had not happened and I had not pursued the request.) The Auditors' investigation resulted in several recommendations for improvements but confirmed that fundamentally all was well. At the Claimant's request I communicated this outcome to members of the department and also wrote to him personally apologising for any distress that the investigation may have caused him. I believe that I acted properly and proportionately in this case but it was clearly unfortunate that I did not have personal access to the system. The Claimant's race or ethnicity had no relevance to my actions and although he complained to the Warden about the investigation the Claimant never, until the 2004 Grievance, suggested that it did.

44. The Claimant has alleged that the various difficulties that he and I experienced in our working relationship are evidence that I was "trying to get rid of him". I was not trying to get rid of him: I was trying to resolve issues in as constructive a way as I could. I do not deny that there were difficulties. though a number of the instances he cites (the office alterations, College Ball accounts, the bike park celebration etc.) were not raised as such at the time and are in my view spurious. I believe that in each substantive case the difficulty arose because of the actions or attitude of the Claimant, whether it was remote access to the accounting system, refusal to produce portfolio valuations, authorisation of staff loans, internal recruitment of staff or any of the other issues, I believe that in each case my response was the appropriate response of a manager endeavouring to discharge his responsibilities in a fair and professional manner. I did not seek confrontation but neither did I feel I should duck issues. After each setback I sought to rebuild a good working relationship with the Claimant, only to be confronted in due course with another problem.

45. The Claimant has alleged that I was racially prejudiced against him from the time I became Bursar, if not before. I believe the evidence contradicts this. I recommended him for discretionary pay increases. I wrote very positive appraisals. I recommended that he be given the same parking privileges as members of Governing Body. I encouraged him to lunch more often in the Senior Common Room. When, in July 2002, I started work on the restructuring of the management accounts I invited him to my home and we spent a morning sitting round the kitchen table drinking coffee and 'brainstorming' about how this might be done. The Grievance process and the Appeal found not one shred of evidence that any of my actions had been motivated by racial or ethnic considerations. Nor, until the lodging of the Grievance, did the Claimant complain to me or to anyone else in authority that any of my actions had been so motivated. I absolutely reject the allegation that any actions taken by me in relation to the Claimant were racially motivated.

46. I believe that the Claimant has received all monies to which he is entitled.

47. I was not (until January 2004) aware of the up-lift of 1.35% to the Claimant's salary and there is nothing on his employment file to indicate that an uplift had been authorised. Each July the Claimant, along with all other members of staff, received a letter from the Bursar stating what their salary would be for the coming year. As subsequently emerged, the Claimant had since 1996 been adding 1.35% to this figure. He did not draw this arrangement to my attention once I took over as Bursar or seek confirmation that it was in order. Given the position he held I believe this was, at the very least, an unfortunate omission.

48. I do not believe we were excessively slow in settling the Claimant's payment in lieu of notice. Subsequent to his dismissal several issues came to light on which we sought information, including the whereabouts of the current VAT file and the 2001/02 and 2002/03 Audit Files and the justification for certain bills that the Claimant had incurred at the College's expense when he was on sick leave. We are still waiting for a satisfactory explanation of these points but have nevertheless made the payment in lieu of notice. I do not believe we are obliged to pay interest.

Signed: Roger Boden

Dated: 13-12-04