Cardiff University admits no vote was taken on controversial project in Kazakhstan

Martin Shipton

Cardiff University has admitted that no formal vote was taken at its supreme governing body, the University Council, to endorse controversial plans for the development of a new “branch campus” in Kazakhstan.

At the same time, the university’s Vice Chancellor, Wendy Larner, has ordered that an email about the governance failure sent by the Council’s Chair to its members should not be released to Nation.Cymru.

Despite the university’s admission now that no formal vote on the project took place, the university issued a press release in the wake of the University Council meeting stating: “Last week, our Council met to consider the proposal for Cardiff University to establish a branch campus in Astana, Kazakhstan. After extensive discussions, including contributions and questions to the HM Ambassador to Kazakhstan, Ms Kathy Leach, Council has approved the proposal, subject to final legal agreement, marking an important step in Cardiff’s global engagement strategy.”

FoI request

In March 2024 a Nation.Cymru journalist submitted an FoI request to the university stating: “Please let me know if there was a formal vote at the last Cardiff University Council meeting to endorse Cardiff University’s plans for its Kazakhstan development; and what was the content of the email that was subsequently sent by the Chair of Council, Pat Younge, to Council members.”

The university has now responded, stating: “There was no formal vote undertaken at the last meeting of Cardiff University Council.

“The subsequent email by the Chair to Council members was sent in the expectation of confidentiality and without prejudice in order to inform the University’s approach to areas of institutional vulnerability or strategic risk. Council are the supreme governing body of the University. They must be able to conduct their business and the business of the University in a safe and secure way. Aligned, individual Council members must feel safe to express their views on such matters without fear.

“Section 36(2)(b)(ii) [of the Freedom of Information Act 2000] provides that information may be withheld from disclosure where, in the opinion of the Qualified Person, its release would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. This includes the inhibition, or likely inhibition of, the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. These discussions and deliberations were conducted in the expectation of confidentiality and without prejudice in order to inform strategic decision making.

“If the confidentiality of the content of correspondence between Council members on matters of University business that are commercially sensitive is not upheld, it would inhibit free and frank exchange of views and purposes of deliberation and impair the quality of future decision making. It will also undermine the University’s ability to seek new appointments to Council if members of Council are not able to execute their role as trustees of the University in a safe and secure way, and risk compromising the principle that lay members are ”free from any constraints that would prevent a correct course of action being taken” outlined in our statement of independence.

“It is the opinion of the Vice Chancellor that information withheld under section 36 represents the free and frank exchange of views between staff within the University for the purposes of deliberation. Disclosure will be highly likely to have a ‘chilling effect’ on future discussions and prevent future free and frank deliberations.

“The University must consider the public interest test when applying section 36 and this is considered below.

“Public Interest Test

“Factors in Favour of Disclosure: It is in the public interest for the University to be seen to be accountable and there are benefits to society in transparency and openness in relation to how the University conducts its business.

“Factors in Favour of Non-disclosure: It is not in the public interest to create a “chilling effect” on future discussions and prevent future free and frank deliberations concerning the University’s approach to areas of institutional vulnerability or strategic risk.

“On balance we therefore consider that the potential for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs outweighs the public interest in disclosing this information at this time.There is therefore a greater public interest in withholding this material and the Section 36 exemption applies.”

Lawfulness

Sources at Cardiff University have suggested that the failure to hold a formal vote to endorse the Kazakhstan plans calls into question the lawfulness of the university’s commitment to the project.

Nation Cymru understands that following the Council meeting, the Chair of Council, Pat Younge emailed Council members apologising for the failure to take a formal vote.

A member of the University and College Union who did not want to be quoted by name for fear of recriminations said: “What is having a chilling effect on the university is the threat of compulsory redundancy still hanging over 1307 academic staff, along with the threats made to union officers under the university’s so-called Dignity at Work policy.

“If the University Council failed to have a formal vote to endorse its Kazakhstan plans, that is yet more evidence of the incompetent governance of Cardiff University. Where was the University Council when successive Vice Chancellors were racking up deficits? The university is rapidly becoming a laughing stock amongst its competitors.”

Internal review

Nation.Cymru has submitted a request to the university for an internal review of the Vice Chancellor’s decision not to release the email. Our journalist states in the request for a review: “I am seeking a review of the negative decision because I believe that the grounds used to justify the refusal are spurious.

“The fact that the University Council did not take a formal vote on the Kazakhstan plans appears to represent a serious failure in governance. As the email sent to me by the university points out, the University Council is “the supreme governing body” of the university. As such, it must expect rigorous scrutiny from the media in the event of any irregularity.

“There are, in my view, no legitimate grounds for withholding from disclosure the email sent by the Chair of the University Council to its members following the failure to hold a formal vote on the Kazakhstan project, a matter of considerable public interest, especially at a time when the university has proposed significant job cuts and School closures.

“My view is that the Vice Chancellor’s decision to block the release of the email is motivated by a desire to minimise embarrassment for her and the university rather than relating to any need for confidentiality. There is nothing commercially confidential about the Chair of the University Council explaining to its members that a failure of governance has occurred.”