Court members at the University of Dundee have been told to accept decisions passed by Court or “have the option to resign”.
University Court members were reminded of their collective responsibility at the Court meeting on 16th July, along with emails sent to Court members after the passing of the Strategy to Recovery had been approved on 9th June.
Collective responsibility is the duty of a Court Member to uphold decisions passed by Court. As it says in the Standing Orders of Court, if a member voted against a motion they “should subsequently support the decision consistent with the principle of collective responsibility.”
Esther Roberton, Chair of Court, reminded Court members of this when she took up her role in December 2025. In the minutes it states as she “reminded staff members in particular that, notwithstanding their route to membership, they were now charity trustees and members of a body corporate with responsibilities to the institution over and above their loyalties to the constituency which had nominated or elected them.”
Court is responsible for finances and strategy at the highest level of the University. Its members are charity trustees of the institution, with around a third elected and the rest arriving by nomination or appointment. For example, the DUSA President, an elected position, sits on Court alongside the Principal of the university.
The Strategy to Recovery aims to save a further £20 million annually for the University by setting out a Voluntary Redundancy Scheme for university staff and by changing support services and courses.
Minutes from the Court meeting of 9 June reveal that “the Court approved the Strategy to Recovery 13 votes to 5. The names of those voting against (Tánaiste Custance, Dr Carlo Morelli, Maggie Chapman, Dr Martine Van Ittersum and Emma Preston) were recorded. One member (Professor Susan Kinnear) abstained owing to membership of the Faculty Executive Group responsible for implementation of the Strategy.”
Court members who took their seats in Bonar Hall on 16 July were presented with an unsigned and undated piece of paper, citing sections of the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance 2023, the University Court Standing Orders and the University’s Code for Members of the Court.
On the backside of the paper, Court members were told they had three choices if they deemed a decision passed by Court to be “the ‘wrong’ decision”:
“1) Accept the decision on the basis that the majority of Court members supported it
“2) Record objection but also accept that they will not be able to publicly criticise the decision made as they are bound by collective responsibility
“3) If they feel that they cannot accept the decision made for whatever reason, they have the option to resign from Court”
Court members were reminded about their collective responsibility in an email from the Chair of Court on 18 June 2026. Ms Roberton stated in this e-mail that:
“All University Trustees are accountable for decisions passed by Court, whether they vote against individual proposals or abstain from voting. Simply registering dissent does not absolve individual Court members from collective accountability for decisions that are passed.”
“I am aware that some members of Court have made statements about recent Court decisions to the media without disclosing their status as Charity Trustees and making comments which could be seen as bringing University Court into disrepute. I wanted to make you aware that I am taking steps to address this.”
Ms Roberton sent a second email two hours later that day, which went to four Court members individually: Dr Martine van Ittersum, elected through the Staff Council, Tánaiste Custance, then DUSA president, University Rector Maggie Chapman, who is also Scottish Green MSP for the North East Scotland region, and Carlo Morelli, the Court Nominee from Dundee University and College Union (DUCU). All four had spoken to the media about the proposed cuts.
The second e-mail of Ms Roberton reads:
“Nobody is prohibited from criticising the decisions made by the University, but you, as a University Trustee, have been a part of these decisions and are bound by collective accountability.
“I am, therefore, extremely disappointed as Chair of Court to see that you have been making public statements about the University without disclosing your status as University Trustee, which I believe may have brought the University and the University Court, which you represent, into disrepute.
“I note that on numerous occasions you have requested to have your objections to Court decisions noted, in particular in relation to the Strategy to Recovery and other strategic decisions pertaining to the financial sustainability of the University.
“This is in line with our Code of Conduct, but I must stress that registering your objections does not absolve you, as a member of University Court, from assuming accountability for the collective decisions made by the governing body.”
She then outlines the possible consequences of continuing to criticise the decisions of the University Court while being a member of the governing body.
“It cannot be tolerated that you make public statements which openly criticise the decisions made collectively by Court while continuing to serve on the governing body.
“Therefore, I am now writing to you formally to require that this behaviour ceases, as I consider that you have breached your responsibilities.
“Failure to adhere to the Court Standing Orders may results in action taken as per section 2 (l) (i-vii) relating to investigations into personal misconduct.”
Dr Van Ittersum gave an interview to STV on 16 June, the day the University announced its proposed cuts. Press waited outside the Dalhousie Building, where university staff had watched the Interim Principal’s announcement via MS Teams.
In the STV clip, Dr Van Ittersum is seen speaking “I’m sorry, you know, what do you think this is? This is impoverishment or wholesale destruction of University education.” The clip lasts for 10 seconds, with a name tag describing her as a “Senior Lecturer,” not as a Court member.
Mr Custance told TJJ that the four of them were formally warned that collective responsibility applied to Court members, and that it was therefore an offence for them to speak publicly against a decision Court had made, even if they had disagreed with the decision.
He went on to say he questioned in the Court meeting on 16 July what “public” meant to the Chair of Court. Mr Custance says she clarified that “public” meant anyone, not just media but staff and students too, in public or private conversation.
Mr Custance resigned from Court on 21 July, five days after the meeting where members were told resignation was one of three options and ten days before his term on Court was due to end.
He told TJJ he emailed all Court members on 20 July setting out his concerns about a risk to life from planned cuts to student services and about Court members being prevented from dissenting. The email also contained his resignation as a Court member.
The Jute Journal asked OSCR, the Scottish Charity Regulator, about collective responsibility and a trustees ability to talk to the public. OSCR defined collective responsibility as the following:
“All the charity trustees are collectively responsible for the charity. No one individual charity trustee should have more power or control over the charity than the others. Charity trustees are not only responsible for their own actions; they are also responsible for the joint actions and decisions taken by the charity trustees.”
OSCR also told TJJ that “the duty of all charity trustees is to act in the interests of their charity and in particular to act with care and diligence.”
The email also mentions that Charities “should have the appropriate mechanisms in place to make sure that a safe environment is created for staff.” Trustees also have the responsibility of safeguarding.
When it comes to decision making OSCR said that “once trustees have properly made a decision, every trustee is expected to support and implement it, even if they voted against it. While a trustee can respond neutrally to a public question about a board decision (for example, that a range of views were considered and the trustees decided collectively on a particular course of action), trustees should not publicly state they voted against a decision and that the other trustees are wrong. If trustees continue to disagree with a course of action, they should use appropriate internal channels to persuade fellow trustees to change course.”
A University spokesperson told TJJ:
“Court normally operates on the principle of collective decisions but there are occasions when votes are taken and, if requested, the minutes can give a breakdown of the voting.
“The Standing Orders of Court note that members can ask that their dissent is recorded formally.
“The Code of Conduct for Court members states that members must not disclose decisions of Court to interested parties within or outside of the University.”