Would the university be better served by an elected board of trustees than a governing council?

Dear Editor,

A close examination of the governance and management policies and structures at the University of Guyana would reveal their inadequacies for the effective leadership and management of this nation’s premier educational institution.

We can take the “review of the university’s Acts & Statutes” as given, and turn our attention immediately to the University Governing Council.   Because the Minister of Education of any government has the power to make any number of appointments to the university’s governing council, the government of the day, and not the university’s academic community, is always assured of a majority whenever a matter is put to the vote. The ratio of political appointees to representatives of the academic community could be even greater than 5 to 1. The University Governing Council, therefore, is usually stacked with party hacks and activists, many of whom have little or no experience in post-secondary, tertiary or higher education.  As a result partisanship and political expediency rather than educational criteria characterize policy and decision-making.

The three top officials within the governing structure are the Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor. Of the three, the only full-time position appears to be that of the Vice-Chancellor, while the others can be deemed part-time, or ceremonial. The former Chancellor held a top position at the Caribbean Development Bank, but attended some council meetings.  I would imagine that all of the Chancellor’s expenses would be paid for by UG whenever he visits Guyana on the university’s business.

The Pro-Chancellor chairs the Council meetings in the absence of the Chancellor, and, also, chairs the Finance & General Purposes (F&GP) committee. I am not in a position to say how often the Council and the F&GP meet. But, what is more widely known is that the Pro-Chancellor has a substantive post in the Office of The President (OP), and he is also the Chairman of the National Communications Network (NCN).  It should be obvious that the Pro- Chancellor is not in a position to give this struggling institution the attention it so desperately needs.

To make matters worse, the Pro-Chancellor’s office is located in University House, the official residence of the Vice-Chancellor. The university was put to the additional expense of having to find alternative accommodation for Prof Carrington when he assumed duties as Vice-Chancellor some three years ago.  When the several staff allocated to Pro-Chancellor at University House is taken into account, it represents a severe drain on the already meagre resources of the university.

Surely, the above does not represent the most prudent, or efficient use of the university’s scarce resources.    Would the university be better served by a small elected Board of Trustees, and the following four full-time officers: President and CEO; Vice-President Academic Affairs; Vice-President Student Affairs; and Vice-President Finance & General Purposes?   In order to ensure the availability of the most suitable candidates, access to these positions should be based on widely advertised and competitive processes.

Attention should also be given to the institution’s middle management represented by deans and heads of departments. According to existing academic policy at UG, deans are rotated every three years. Deans are not executive officers.  To be considered for a deanship, an academic should first, be a senior lecturer, and second, enjoy the confidence of a majority of the members of the faculty (that is, voted in). However, in many instances no senior lecturer is available, and so a lecturer II is appointed to the top management position in the faculty.  The accomplishments of a previous successful deanship risk being undone by incoming mediocrity. Over time, this inbreeding has resulted in the loss of academic vigour and vitality. Although there are differences in the process for the selection, appointment and tenure of heads of department, these positions are never advertised.  Selection is from within the department – inbreeding.  This also, results in the loss of academic vigour and vitality.

The offices of deans and heads of department have some very specific leadership and management functions, and responsibilities. There is urgent need for qualified executive deans and heads of departments, who enjoy some credibility among their peers regionally, if not internationally. They should enjoy tenure of their respective offices for a minimum of 5 years, unless their performance appraisals or evaluations indicate otherwise.

In order to help attract adequately qualified academics to UG, remuneration packages would have to be greatly improved and made far more competitive with similar institutions in the region, and the private sector.  Further, to help renew, motivate and re-energize the present teaching staff, the present career path of Lecturer I, Lecturer II, Senior Lecturer, Reader,  Professor, ought to be compressed to 3 tiers:  Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor.  A corresponding upward revision of the reward structure is also demanded.

In the final analysis, the fate of the University of Guyana rests with Minister of Education Priya Manickchand. The Minister has had a very successful tenure as Minister of Human Services.    The Ministry of Education, though somewhat specialized, should not prove too difficult.  What will history say of her? Will honesty and courage again be her watchwords?  Will she do honour to the legacy of one of Guyana’s outstanding sons – the late Dr Cheddi Bharat Jagan?

It is a widely known fact that in 1963, Dr Jagan established the University of Guyana to assist in the full emancipation of the Guyanese working class. To deny UG in her hour of need, the  Minister (and, by extension, the government), runs the risk of being categorized as anti-working class. Would Dr, and Ms Jagan be proud of this?  Already, there is the issue of the withdrawal in 2007, of the annual subvention to the Critchlow Labour College by her predecessor, Mr Shaik Baksh.

The university unions have stated publicly that their “primary agenda is to ensure that UG equips students with quality education.” Quality education is not a luxury that can be afforded only after development has occurred; it is an integral part of Guyana’s national development process itself.   Further, quality education makes possible economic democracy that enables social mobility, thus making the full emancipation of the working class a reality.   For it is quality education that ensures that social classes are not frozen, and that an elite of whatever kind does not perpetuate itself.

The Minister has the power to do the only right and honourable thing, and rescue UG now. She should remove the “expired, inappropriate and inept Governing Council,” and establish an Interim Management Committee.  Tomorrow may be too late.

Yours faithfully,
Clarence O Perry