A group of Oxford graduates and Russian human rights activists have written to the Guardian calling for Oxford University to reconsider a £75 million donation it accepted from billionaire Leonard Blavatnik in 2010 and review “The Award for Excellence in Foreign Investment in Russia,” an annual award given by the Saïd Business School and Alfa Bank.

The letter calls for the university to “carry out new and independent due-diligence investigation,” for “politicians and other prominent public figures who endorsed the BSG [Blavatnik School of Government]…to withdraw their support” and for a “vigorous public debate that involves students, alumni, tutors, NGOs, political dissidents and industry experts”.

Blavatnik, a Russian-born businessman living in London, provided the donation to fund the construction of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government (BSG), which is now moving into a new, permanent facility on Walton Street.

It is in light of BSG’s move that the letter’s signatories, which include Soviet dissidents and some non-Oxford academics, hope to draw attention to what they perceive as corrupt business practices by Blavatnik and a group of other Russian billionaires, like Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven, both of whom are involved with the Alfa Bank.

The petition states the three men “belong to a consortium of Russian billionaires called Access-Alfa-Renova (AAR). The consortium has long been accused of being behind a campaign of state-sponsored harassment against BP. In 2008-09 dozens of British and other western managers were forced out of Russia. These corporate abuses took place in Russia with active official support.”

A university spokesperson told Cherwell, “Oxford University has a thorough and robust scrutiny process in place with regard to philanthropic giving. The Committee to Review Donations conducts appropriate due diligence based on publicly available information. The University is confident in this process and in its outcomes.”

“Generous philanthropic donations help make [our world-leading work] possible, supporting outstanding teaching and research discoveries of worldwide benefit,” the spokesperson added.

Professor Ngaire Woods, Dean of the BSG, stated, “Leonard Blavatnik is a philanthropist who has given to many British and American charities and Universities. He has made Oxford’s School of Government possible by stepping up to the plate as the first major donor to the School.”

However, Ilya Zaslavskiy, an Oxford graduate and former head of the Oxford alumni society in Moscow, who was responsible for organizing the petition, told Cherwell, “Oxford’s response reminds me of a broken hurdy-gurdy that repeats the same empty words which hardly any of those who took decisions on cooperating with oligarchs genuinely believe or practice.

“The press service can continue pouring phrases like ‘thorough and robust scrutiny process’ into the ears of the majority of Oxford Congregation [the University’s governing body] who sadly have little clue about actual human rights abuses in Putin’s Russia.

“This is not what should be expected from the leading global institution that teaches good governance and states high ethical norms in its own regulations as a goal.”

He also claimed that Professor Woods compared the positive effect of Blavatnik’s donation to that of Cecil Rhodes and told him in 2010 “that, while Blavatnik may not be an angel, he is better than other oligarchs”.

Zaslavskiy went on to say that “Putin’s oligarchs have essentially colonized Russia in the worst traditions of the nineteenth century.”

David Cameron faces charges of hypocrisy after he wrote to the leader of Oxfordshire County Council, Mr Ian Hudspeth, protesting about cuts being made to frontline public services.

The letter, written in September but leaked to the Oxford Mail in the last few days, expressed disappointment about council plans to cut funding for services such as libraries and elderly day centres, suggesting back-office savings and shared service solutions should be investigated instead.

Mr Hudspeth replied with a six-page document rebutting each of the points made, pointing out how extensive cuts had already been made in these areas and arguing that, given budget constraints, the council was left with little choice.

In his letter, the Prime Minister wrote, “I was disappointed at the long list of suggestions floated to make significant cuts to frontline services. I would have hoped that Oxfordshire would instead be following the best practice of Conservative councils from across the country in making back-office savings and protecting the frontline.”

In his reply, Mr Hudspeth pointed out, “Our significant savings over recent years have included taking out as much from the back-office as possible”, and claimed, “Our revenue support grant funding has fallen by almost 50 per cent in the first half of this decade…Other funding streams have not kept pace with this, particularly in real terms.”

Mr Hudspeth, a representative of the Conservatives since 1999, also questioned the factual accuracy in parts of Cameron’s letter. In response to the PM’s description of the cuts to government grants for Oxfordshire as a “slight fall”, Mr Hudspeth wrote, “I cannot accept your description of a drop in funding of £72m or 37 per cent as a ‘slight fall’.”

In another part of the letter, referring to Cameron’s comment that, “Your briefing note suggested that £204m had been taken out of the budget since 2010”, Mr Hudspeth appears to state that the PM misunderstood the statistics, writing, “I cannot emphasise enough that £204m is not a cumulative figure…cumulative savings since 2010/11 are in fact £626m.”

A spokeswoman for Downing Street said, “There is still significant scope for sensible savings across local government to be made by back office consolidation, disposing of surplus property and joining up our local public services; we will be discussing with Oxfordshire how this can be taken forward to help protect frontline services.”

Nonetheless, there are now widespread questions over how far the PM comprehends the extent of the cuts his government has mandated. John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor, joked, “I’m backing David Cameron on this one. He is absolutely right that his chancellor’s cuts to local government are seriously damaging our communities and have to be opposed. I welcome the Prime Minister as another Tory MP joining our campaign against George Osborne’s cuts.”

Cameron’s subsequent offer of a meeting with his Downing Street policy unit has led to Labour council leaders around the country inundating the PM with requests for the same treatment and serious accusations of an abuse of ministerial privileges, favouring his own constituency’s local council.

Local Oxfordshire figures have joined in criticisms of Cameron’s apparent lack of understanding about Oxfordshire Council’s difficulties, which includes his own Witney constituency. Leader of the Liberal Democrats at Oxfordshire Council, Richard Webber, commented, “It is staggering that the Prime Minister knows so little of the impact of his government’s cuts in his own backyard”.

Meanwhile, leader of Oxford City Council Bob Price, told Cherwell, “It is particularly surprising that an Oxfordshire MP who gets regular briefing from his fellow County Tories should have put his name to such a dismissive and insouciant letter.”

Labour Councillor Liz Brighouse went so far as to suggest that the PM was relying on dubious information from civil servants, to the detriment of those affected by local cuts, commenting, “Our budget is being spent on the most vulnerable people. But Mr Cameron has not bothered to speak to anyone here and has just relied on his people in Whitehall to tell him what is going on.”

Among some Oxford students, this news has been met with similar derision. The Oxford University Labour Club told Cherwell, “David Cameron’s letter to the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council shows just how out of touch he is with the delivery of public services both in Oxford and across the country. Unfortunately, in Oxfordshire, cuts have had a harmful impact on many frontline services, such as the provision of social care and community projects.

“What I can say is that these letters are part of an ongoing discussion with government about how we can protect frontline services while doing our bit in Oxfordshire to tackle the national budget deficit – a government policy that I support. To do this, we are having to make some very difficult decisions, which is why we are consulting the public on all the options.”

Neither Hudspeth nor the Oxford University Conservative Association responded to Cherwell’s request for comment.

A referendum to introduce three new liberation officer positions within Oriel JCR has been delayed due to problems with the college online voting service BallotBin.

In the referendum, the JCR proposes to introduce three new positions to the JCR Committee including a Women’s Officer, BME Officer and Disabilities Officer.

Hustings for the referendum took place on Sunday at a two-hour JCR meeting, although Section 11(b) of the Oriel JCR constitution declares that, “Hustings must be held no more than three full days before polling.”

According to the motion, JCR members will be encouraged only to vote in those elections if they self-identify with the liberation group that each Officer would represent, for each of the Officer positions introduced. The Proposition felt that Officers are there to represent their liberation groups in College and that it would be only fair if each respective liberation group gets to decide who will be their officer.

However, issues have been raised within the JCR as to the wording of the referendum. In particular, the opposition has found that this motion, worded as one referendum rather than several separate referenda for three new roles, to be problematic and limiting in that it disallows for a student to disagree with parts of the referendum.

In addition, the voting rights proposed would not be inclusive for other college members where they are not actively encouraged to vote someone into a position that has a voting right within the JCR committee.

Concern was also raised by the opposition at the ‘fully-elected’ nature of the roles, meaning a poll would be taken online rather than in person at a JCR open meeting, which is referred to as ‘semi-elected’. However, JCR President Kate Welsh defended the nature of the online elections, arguing that they preserved anonymity for self-identifying members of the liberation groups concerned.

James Power, a second-year Computer Science and Philosophy student and designated opposition speaker, told Cherwell, “I am glad that Kate, our JCR President, has brought this referendum. It shows that Oriel is engaging with and beginning to start a positive process to further represent minority groups on our JCR committee. Sometimes I think people are quick to judge you and call you out for opposing a motion like this. But really, I, along with Kate, want to make Oriel a more inclusive place and it’s great that we can have a frank, honest and open discussion about the best way in which to do this.”

Semi-elected LGBTQ Rep of Oriel, Elliot Parrott, told Cherwell, “I was happy to notice the explicit inclusion of mental health problems and learning difficulties under the remit of the Disabilities Officer, as these problems are often not acknowledged or treated as ‘real disabilities’.”

Parrott added, “I was disappointed but unsurprised to hear the majority of complaints coming from people for whom these roles would likely be irrelevant – though of course it is impossible to tell how someone identifies with regards to race, gender or disability just by looking at them.”

The proposition noted that it is impossible to sufficiently represent every minority group, gender or disability on the JCR Committee. However, having one Equal Opportunities Rep was inadequate when attempting to create an inclusive and representative committee that represents the student body.

As a result, the replacement of this position with multiple officer positions will aim to enable the College to recognise the diversity within the liberation groups that they represent in a way that the proposition claims one Equal Opportunities Rep fails to do.

Parrott commented, “Oriel – the last Oxford college to admit women as undergraduates, the home of the infamous statue of Cecil Rhodes, and a college with virtually no accessible accommodation and very few accessible teaching rooms – has been behind the times for too long now, and I hope that the addition of a Women’s Officer, BME Officer, and Disabilities Officer (as well as the semi-elected role of LGBTQ Rep being upgraded to a fully elected LGBTQ Officer) will help the college become a more welcoming place for all of its students.”

The referendum has since been confirmed as taking place on Friday.