In December 2025, the University Council nominated Liz McKenzie as a new University Nominated Trustee on the University Executive Board. McKenzie has worked mainly in management and business roles before starting a non-executive career “focused on organisations delivering societal value”, according to the Student Senate meeting Agenda for December 11th.
When her appointment was voted on at this meeting, Student Senator and member of Cardiff Students Against Cuts (CSAC) James Scott argued that her background did not make her the best candidate to represent students and university staff. He claimed that as a wealthy “angel investor” McKenzie may not be relatable to the student body, and cited concerns about salary discrepancies at companies she has previously worked for: at Monmouthshire
Building Society, of which McKenzie was Non-Executive Director, the CEO was paid seven times the median salary of employees. Scott alleged that this is roughly the same ratio that exists between Cardiff University’s Vice- Chancellor and the salary of a median staff member, and expressed concerns that having “more management types” on the board could worsen this imbalance. He also raised concerns regarding McKenzie’s lack of experience working with universities.
These queries come amid the fallout of the Academic Futures proposal. Released in January 2025 to fill a £30 million budget hole, it has since caused 41% of staff to experience job insecurity. This plan was approved by the Council despite a unanimous vote against it by the University Senate, a fact Scott described as a “fundamental disregard by University management of the interests of students and staff.”
Although the decision to appoint McKenzie was approved, Scott hopes that voicing his concerns will begin a process of change. He aims to amend protocol so that the Senate nominates trustees instead of the Council, giving academics themselves a voice on the Board.
At the same meeting, Scott proposed a ‘Campaign to open the books and improve the university’s financial strategy’ motion, which was approved by the Senate with 88% of the vote. This new proposal mandates that Sabbatical Officers of the Student’s Union must press the university to release any incorrect or previously unreleased analyses used in decision-making regarding the cuts. They must also resist university plans to operate a 12 percent budget surplus and urge them to use its £184 million of unallocated reserve funds to alleviate the cuts, along with requesting an external consultation on the cuts programme and campaigning against the university’s “neoliberal ideology” by highlighting incidents in which such viewpoints were expressed. Scott points out for example that the university’s 2035 vision suggested the solution to the mental health crisis should be “exponential...en-mass support from AI”.
The Student Senate believes that decisions about cuts were made on ideological grounds as well as financial ones, and the passing of this motion calls for transparency regarding ideologies behind budget decisions.
Going forward, Scott plans to put forward more motions, including “one to cut the salary of top earners at the university and another to address concerns around the campus in Kazakhstan in February.”