Evidence items D345-363
Email exchanges between Roger Boden and Diamond Versi, May 2003

From: Diamond Versi
Organization: Keble College
To: Roger Boden
Date sent: Fri, 2 May 2003 17:29
Subject: Hien offer

Dear Roger

I have today spoken to Hien about her transfer to the accounts department. I have given the job description to her and confirmed a salary of £15,908. Needless to say that Hien is over the moon for us offering her the lifetime opportunity. I assured her that she was doing Keble a favour by accepting the position on offer. I am looking forward to working with her. I thank you for all the help and encouragement. I would be grateful if you could let me know when Hien can start working in the accounts. Now turning to the point of my staff's salaries. I was surprised to hear that you believe they are paid a lot of money. They are technicians with skills but they still do not earn as much as other members of the administrative staff. To prove the point I attach salaries of all the administrative staff in the College. I have excluded Deborah, Isla, Steve, Janet and myself in order to make the comparison meaningful. Ruth's salary has been uplifted to give a full-time equivalent value. You will notice that my accountancy assistants are at the bottom - only Abbey, at 22 years of age, earns the least. We should take the training and accounting qualifications into account. We need to seriously review these salaries if we wish to retain our strong team.

What do you think?

Diamond

From: Roger Boden
Organization: Keble College
To: Diamond Versi
Date sent: Fri, 2 May 2003 18:52
Subject: salary comparison

Dear Diamond

I think it would be sensible to look at this when time permits. The relevant comparisons are more likely to be with staff doing similar work in other colleges than with staff doing different work in Keble. And the review should properly include inter-college comparisons of other staff functions rather than just Accounts. I don't think we'll be able to tackle this before the autumn given budgets, year-end financials etc. But I agree that we should address it before too long.

Roger

From: Diamond Versi
Organization: Keble College
To: Roger Boden
Copy to: Julie Hernandez
Date sent: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:44
Subject: salary comparison

Dear Roger

I attach an updated spreadsheet as I had missed Danielle's salary. Whilst inter-collegiate comparisons may be useful the true comparison can only be achieved by looking at the administrative salaries within Keble. We must realise that the Keble situation is unique among Oxford colleges. In the last 5 years the conference business has increased by more than 60% and available student accommodation has increased by more than 40%. Yet the accounts department has not expanded. Elsewhere in the College the expansion is evident. Ken offered me more staff but I refused as I managed to absorb the extra work within the strong accounts team. For this achievement I believe the accounts staff should be rewarded and, indeed, it will be necessary to uplift their salaries in line with the market forces. So far I have restricted my comparison to the administrative staff. But if you then extend it to the rest of the staff in the College you will quickly realise that the accounts salary increments are way out of line with what you paid the kitchen and other staff at the last review. It would be very interesting to see how these salaries compare with what is paid at other colleges. Now that we are in agreement that the review is necessary then we should timetable it.

Diamond

From: Roger Boden
Organization: Keble College
To: Diamond Versi
Copy to: Wade Allison
Date sent: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:38
Subject: Transfer of Hien Le to Accounts

Dear Diamond

I have received from the Sub-Warden a copy of his note on this subject. I understand that he discussed it with you this afternoon and that you have accepted his conclusions. The position therefore is that Hien will transfer on 30th June unless in my judgement it becomes possible to bring that date forward. I shall continue to review the situation with Janet and assure you that we will do what we can. I share your confidence that Hien will prove an excellent addition to the Accounts Department. I also wished to say that I now regard this entire matter as closed and look forward to the resumption of cordial relations.

Yours

Roger

From: Diamond Versi
Organization: Keble College
To: Roger Boden
Date sent: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:45
Subject: GT & VAT recovery

Dear Roger

I was most disappointed when I found out that you made a poor deal for the College when you were approached by Johnathan de Wilton, the VAT consultant from Grant Thornton. I spoke to JdW this morning when he asked if you had spoken to me. I said that you had not. When he called you the proper protocol would suggest that you speak to me first before committing the College to a bad deal. You know that I am an experienced negotiator. In the past I have made some very good and profitable deals for the College. JdW would have normally spoken to me but I guess he thought you were a soft touch. You and I should work towards the common good of Keble College. You must not exclude me from matters of tax negotiations. I made a deal in 1996 with JdW whereby College got 82.5% and GT got only 12.5%. You have struck a deal whereby the College may get 75% and GT 25%. And to cap it all you have agreed to give away £1,000.00 of the College's money whether we lose or win. I am writing this note for the record. It would appear that you intend to exclude me from the well-being of this College. For example, you excluded me from an attendance at the recent Investment Committee meeting which was held at Keble whereas I was invited to the one held in London. I am hoping that in future you will act professionally and involve me in matters of financial importance to the College.

Your personal feelings towards me should not get in the way of progress. I am acting professionally all the time. By writing this note I am behaving professionally. The above clearly shows that you have not acted in the best interest of the College. Let us have a cordial relationship that you spoke of in your recent email to me.

Best wishes and kindest regards

Diamond

From: Roger Boden
Organization: Keble College
To: Diamond Versi
Date sent: Wed, 14 May 2003 22:46
Subject: GT & VAT recovery

Dear Diamond

We have already spoken about Grant Thornton. As to the meeting about Hedge Funds, this was not a full meeting of the Investment Advisory Committee but a working session on Hedge Funds attended by myself, Tim Jenkinson and George Robinson - it followed from the series of meetings George and I have had with fund managers in London. The Warden was there for about twenty minutes and Wade Allison came along out of interest. We heard submissions from two hedge fund managers. The primary aim was for Tim to form a view as to whether George and I should continue our investigation of this sector. His conclusion was that we should, and as a result I am endeavouring to arrange a final round of meetings with managers, to be followed by a meeting of the Committee within the next couple of weeks or so. You may perhaps be under a misapprehension as to your status in relation to the Committee. You are not a member of it, but at my suggestion Finance Committee agreed that you should attend it as its deliberations were likely to result in the College becoming involved in more direct administration of its portfolio. You will of course receive an invitation to the forthcoming meeting.

I cannot, sadly, leave my reply at that. You have made some rather unfortunate observations about my professionalism and our relationship. Last week you made a formal complaint to the Sub-Warden about my conduct over the transfer of Hien to Accounts. The Sub-Warden's ruling was clear. I took the view that the proper course was to draw a line under that unhappy chapter and try to rebuild our working relationship. But in this email you make several new and serious allegations: - that I made a poor deal for the College - that I am perceived as a soft touch - that I have excluded you from tax negotiations - that I intend to exclude you from the well-being of this College - that I have acted unprofessionally and allowed personal feelings to get in the way of progress - that I have not acted in the best interests of this College. I really don't want to escalate this, but neither can I allow such slander to pass without response. I must therefore ask you, please, to desist. Colleagues do not always agree. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. But organisations cannot function if there is not a reasonable measure of goodwill and respect. That is all I ask of you.

Yours

Roger

From: Diamond Versi
Organization: Keble College
To: Roger Boden
Date sent: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:45
Subject: GT & VAT

Dear Roger

Many thanks for the update on the Investment Advisory Committee's deliberations. I fully understand that my role is purely non-executive but I thought that if there are any accounting implications then it would be useful to attend. Now that you have explained it makes sense why I was not invited. As regards other matters you and I have a choice: we either digest what has happened in the last few months and put it all behind us and start working for the common good of the College OR we have an informal civilised meeting and air our concerns and then go forward. You are the boss. I await your final response.

Sincerely yours

Diamond

From: Diamond Versi
Organization: Keble College
To: Roger Boden
Date sent: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:04
Subject: Appraisal

Dear Roger

Many thanks for the appraisal papers. You have referred to the Warden's comments in your notes. I would be grateful if you would let me have the full text of her comments in order for me to comment meaningfully. Have any other fellows commented? If they have then it would also be useful to see these as well.

Diamond

From: Roger Boden
Organization: Keble College
To: Diamond Versi
Date sent: Wed, 19 May 2003 10:29
Subject: Appraisal

Dear Diamond

The comments are verbatim and are the only comments I have received.

Yours

Roger

From: Diamond Versi
Organization: Keble College
To: Roger Boden
Date sent: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:04
Subject: Hien offer

Dear Roger

I have not signed Jane's paperwork as I disagree with the 13 month pay review paragraph. I believe in equal opportunity for all Keble employees. A 13 month review is not the norm at Keble. Almost all the starters get a 6 month review in clause 6 of the contract. You must not misconstrue my disagreement as confrontation. Co-operation is a two way process and I have fully co-operated with you. You asked Jane to obtain Hien's offer details from me. In my email to Jane (and copy to you) I included a 6 month review; but you revoked this and asked Jane to insert July 2003 as a review date. I then approached you and explained that Hien will be starting at the end of June and so a 6 month review would be more appropriate. You said that "we shall not do anything in July and then review her pay in July 2004." So what was the point of asking Jane to get the details from me and then doing entirely contrary to my wish? I then asked you to be upfront and insert July 2004 as a review date.

Diamond

From: Roger Boden
Organization: Keble College
To: Diamond Versi
Date sent: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:48
Subject: Hien offer

Dear Diamond

I have two reasons for not wishing to put an automatic review clause after six months into Hien's contract. The first is that, as you know, I take the view that as she has no practical experience in accounts Hien should start at the bottom of the Grade 4 pay scale. Had we done so I should, as I said to you at the time, have been happy to review her point on the grade after six months. You pressed the case for her starting at 4.3 and, although not persuaded by your arguments, I was willing to concur. By starting her at 4.3, however, we have in effect pre-empted the six- month review, which is why I think it inappropriate to insert one now. The second is that I have agreed, as you requested, to conduct a full review of pay in the Accounts Department and have said that I shall do this in November. It seems to me inappropriate, against that background, to be envisaging a review for Hien at the end of December. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding here. I had assumed that in July 2003 Hien would receive whatever uplift in salary is appropriate to someone on a 4.3 scale. If you would prefer to hold that uplift back til January 2004 that's fine by me, and on that basis I would not object to inserting a 6-month review clause - as long as it was made clear that the review would not involve any change in her point on the grade: it is about that which I believe it would be inappropriate to raise expectations of review prior to July 2004.

Roger