UGSS President did not consult student body on fee increase prior to June 24

Dear Editor,

The UGSS President acted ultra vires in representing the students on the fee increase issue. The impending tuition fee increase is arguably the biggest issue any UGSS President has ever encountered in the past 20 years. As President of the UGSS, Mr Richard Rambarran was the point man for the UG administration in the consultations with the student body prior to June 24, 2014. In this regard the UG administration represented by Vice-Chancellor, Prof Jacob Opadeyi, was quite in order. After all, Richard Rambarran was supposedly representing the opinions and interest of the student body.

On the matter of implementing the increase Mr Rambarran stood in full support, and after all, he is the students’ representative. One would have been inclined to believe that he adopted his position after consultations with the entire student body, or at the very least the elected members of the UGSS executive council. However, I have learned that Mr Rambarran did not put the issue of the increase to a vote in any meeting of the UGSS executive prior to the date above.

A quick look at the UGSS constitution (s 20 (1)) will show that the Executive Council (EC) is vested with the power to conduct the business of the society. It further states that the EC shall be the recognised means of communication between students and the university authorities. The emphasis throughout the constitution on the powers of the Executive Council, outlined at s 22, should not be taken lightly.

It is notable that every power listed is vested in the council, not in the president. This means that the UGSS President should not purport to represent the students unless he has the support of the council.

It is submitted that on the issue of tuition fee increases, having acted without the approval of the council, the president acted ultra vires in representing the interest of the UG Student Society.

Therefore, any consultation and/or opinion expressed by Mr Rambarran should be deemed unconstitutional, thus null and void. I make specific reference to his interactions with the Vice Chancellor, his comments to the media in May 2014, and his presentations to the students at the ‘consultations’ held on June 24, 2014.

I implore the council members to reconsider the recent decision to raise tuition and incidental fees and have meaningful student consultation in the light of this revelation.

Yours faithfully,
Glenfield G Dennison