St Andrews Rector removed from Court role over breach of governance rules

The Rector of the University of St Andrews has been removed from her role as President of University Court after she refused to follow its governance rules.

Ms Stella Maris refused to accept she was bound by collective responsibility which applies to all charity trustees and members of Court, the University’s senior governing body.

The decision, taken at a special meeting of University Court on 9 January 2026, means Ms Maris will no longer sit on the University Court.

She continues to hold the office of Rector of St Andrews, with her term ending in October 2026.

Since last summer, Ms Maris has claimed that she alone has the authority to chair Court, and should have absolute discretion over all aspects of the management of its meetings.

This is contrary to the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance, and the standard operating procedures of Court, which are agreed by Court and have been observed in St Andrews since 2008 and regularly updated and reconfirmed since.

She refused to be bound by these procedures, including the longstanding protocol required by the Scottish Code of Good HE Governance, that the Rector opens and closes meetings while the Senior Lay Member chairs substantive business.

Ms Maris signed a declaration agreeing to abide by these procedures when she was elected Rector in 2023.

Her refusal to agree to follow this protocol disrupted a key meeting in October 2025.

Fellow Court members stated it was “dispiriting” that her arguments about her own powers had diverted attention and resources at a time when Court should be “laser-focused” on addressing the financial challenges facing St Andrews and the higher education sector.

After Court voted to uphold its standard procedures, Ms Maris accused members of acting unlawfully. The primary focus of the meeting was to consider and sign off St Andrews’ financial statements and accounts. Ms Maris made no contribution to the discussion on university finances.

Following the October meeting, the Scottish Funding Council, the regulatory body which funds and oversees governance at all Scottish universities, issued written guidance confirming the University’s interpretation of the rules is correct, and that Ms Maris was wrong in her charge that Court had acted unlawfully.

It also confirmed that the Rector, like all court members and charity trustees, was bound by collective responsibility, and that if a member, for reasons of conscience or principle, cannot stand by a decision of Court, they should resign.

Ms Maris declined an offer to her to bring forward her own proposals to change Court procedures and declined an offer of mediation. She then declined to withdraw the allegation of unlawful behaviour, declined to agree to be bound by collective responsibility, and declined to resign.

A spokesperson for University Court said: “Members of a governing body have clear legal responsibilities and cannot pick and choose which rules they observe.

“To have agreed to Ms Maris’s demands would have made it impossible for Court to operate according to the provisions of the Higher Education Governance Act (Scotland) and the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance.

“This is matter of considerable and enduring regret for members of our Court, who have for several months sought a sensible and collegiate resolution to this matter.

“It is also a matter of regret that considerable time and scarce University resources have been required to address the Rector’s persistent claims about her own constitutional powers, when Court should be focused on addressing the extremely challenging financial circumstances facing St Andrews and all other UK universities at present.

“We thank Ms Maris for her service on Court to date and wish her well for the remainder of her term as St Andrews Rector. The University has offered her support to carry out her pastoral duties for students as Rector.”

Ms Maris can appeal the Court’s decision. As the Chancellorship is currently vacant following the death of Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, any appeal would be heard by a member of the Scotish legal profession.