The withholding of $2.9 million monthly subventions from the Critchlow Labour College (CLC) by government is now entering its fifth month, and with little information from key officials who have responsibility for the disbursement forthcoming, the institution has sought an audience with President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Two weeks ago, following a letter from Presidential Advisor on Community Develop-ment, Odinga Lumumba, who said the government had four requirements which had to be met for funding to resume, Chairman of the CLC Board of Directors Andrew Garnett wrote to Jagdeo seeking a meeting at his convenience. To date he has had no response.
Lumumba’s letter, dated November 7, 2007 was in response to a request from CLC Acting Registrar Godwin McPherson that he find out from Cabinet what was required in order for the CLC subventions to be released. Lumumba said he had been informed at Cabinet that the government required: “Public acknowledgement from the institution as to the roles of the subvention in ensuring that the school functions and more effective and/or increased role of government on the board of directors.” It also wanted “more fiscal transparency especially ensuring that government funding is directed only to the education of the students; an education policy with input from the Minister of Education or his designated representatives.”
For clarity, he asked that McPherson contact Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon or Minister of Education Shaik Baksh.
In response, McPherson on November 9, 2007 said it was “a relief to finally” get a response from the government indicating that additional requirements were expected.
He noted that from the inception, CLC had been wholly financed by the government but when cost recovery was implemented, the subvention was introduced to assist with administration. “Were it to be deprived of the subvention, even at its currently reduced level, the entire burden of the college’s operation would fall on the already hard-pressed students who, as you are aware, do not come from the most economically comfortable sections of society.”
In relation to the second issue, he said the CLC administration would welcome “without reservation a more effective performance from the government representatives on the board of governors.” Under the by-laws of the CLC, he noted, government had the right to name two representatives and expressed the hope that the government would name its representatives.
In relation to the third and fourth requirement, McPherson referred Lumumba to the by-laws of the CLC board and expressed surprise at the implication that the college’s funds, including the government’s subvention were directed to any end other than the education of students.
In answer to the last concern, he said consideration should be given to having one of the government’s representatives on the board. This representative could be named by the Minister of Education, and would be one of the three members appointed to the academic committee. McPherson has not received a reply to his letter.
He also wrote to Baksh on November 15, seeking a meeting with him to discuss the issues raised between Lumumba and himself. It should be noted that all the exchanges between Lumumba and McPherson were copied to the President, Dr Luncheon and Baksh.
Since there has been no response to McPherson’s request and the staff have not been paid since August when the subvention was first withheld, the CLC Board Chairman wrote to the President on December 5, 2007 stating he had found it necessary to inform him of the impact the non-disbursement the subvention was having on the capacity of the college to operate.
While the “mandate of the college is to provide quality education for all,” he said, “we traditionally target those thousands of youth from poor households and who are seizing a second chance in life in an affordable and conducive environment.” He said the CLC was working on some new courses to the associate degree levels, and to re-establish a programme for education and training of trade union leaders, members of unions and workers generally. Those courses were expected to start in early 2008. He is awaiting a response from the Office of the President.
Meanwhile, CLC Principal Dr Rupert Roopnaraine told the Stabroek News that as the academic members of staff had not been paid since August, staff morale was low, and the uncertainty was affecting enrolment for the next academic year.
The college had been operating on a shoestring budget using funds raised from student fees, registration and examination fees, he said, adding, “We try to be competitive but at the same time we have to keep the fees low to cater for the catchment area from which our students are drawn.”
The CLC receives no funding from other sources, Roopnaraine said, and was now looking at options to ensure financial sustainability. These include increasing fees, seeking assistance from sister colleges in the region, and from international organisations.
“One thing is sure,” Roopnaraine said, and that is that the CLC would reopen in January for the new semester. At present, it has an enrolment of 706 students across the CLC campus and branches in Georgetown, Linden and Corriverton.
The CLC, which opened its doors 40 years ago, offers a variety of academic and professional programmes to students and workers on a daily basis. Many secondary students who dropped out of school were offered a second chance at writing the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examinations with many distinguishing themselves. The CLC also offers professional courses in business management, industrial and social sciences, psychology and a variety of others.
Stabroek News was unable to contact Baksh, or Minister within the Ministry of Education Dr Desrey Fox on the issue.
The withholding of the subvention began in August this year when Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education Phulandar Kandhi wrote to McPherson requesting the college’s annual report for 2006 and the work plan for 2007. These were forwarded. In September, the Permanent Secretary then requested the audited reports for 2004, 2005 and 2006.
McPherson replied on September 20, sending the audited report for 2004, noting that the 2004 audited report had been submitted in 2005. He noted, too, that the 2005 and 2006 reports were still with the auditors but as soon as they were received and discussed by the Board of Governors at its October meeting, they would be submitted to the Permanent Secretary.
As promised the audited reports for 2005 and 2006 were submitted.
Meanwhile in October, Roopnaraine informed the staff by way of letter that the subvention, which provides for their salaries, had not been received. He also explained that the problem was exacerbated by the fact that the college was owed some $5 million by students.
On October 15, Garnett wrote to Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh requesting the release of the subventions, and pointing out that the college had ascertained that the withholding of the subventions was owing to the annual report for 2006 and the work programme for 2007 along with the audited reports for 2004, 2005 and 2006 not being submitted.
He noted that the college’s records indicated that the annual report, the work programme and the audited report for 2004 had already been submitted but it had nevertheless been resubmitted along with the 2005 and 2006 audited reports. There was no response from the Minister of Finance to this request.
Garnett also wrote to Baksh at the same time, informing him that he had written to the Minister of Finance on the issue. There was no response from Baksh.
On November 6, 2007, Roopnaraine wrote to Singh, this time pointing out that the subvention was approved within the Estimates of the Public Sector under the heading ‘Details of Education Subventions and Grants (6301)’ on page 377. He noted that a further allocation of
$2 million was made under ‘Details of Capital Expenditure’ on age 413 for the purchase of a photocopier, which was bought.
He reiterated that all the documents requested by the Education Ministry had been submitted and there was no indication that they were in any way deficient or unsatisfactory.
Noting that he was at a loss to understand the delay since the CLC had met all the requirements and the funds had been duly authorized and legislated by the National Assembly, he urged the release of the funds or at the very least to “be given some explanation for the withholding.”
Roopnaraine said that should there be matters that required clarification, he was willing to meet Singh and discuss them. To date there has been no response to his letter.
However, on November 1, 2007, Luncheon reported to the media that there was new financial assistance to unions and the government was reviewing the process.
In response to Luncheon’s remarks, carried in the November 3 edition of the Kaieteur News, Roopnaraine wrote to him saying that while he would agree that it was entirely a matter for the administration to determine the conditions and to what extent it offered financial assistance to the unions, he failed to see how this affected the CLC which was an educational institution with over 40 years of service to the entire labour movement.
The government had withdrawn financial assistance to the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) some time after the emergence of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG).
Roopnaraine explained that on becoming the principal of the CLC, he visited the offices of the Guyana Labour Union, Clerical and Commercial Workers Union, National Agricultural Allied Commercial and Industrial Employees and emphasised the secular history and role of the college and of his determination to ensure that it continued to serve the entire movement.
He did not meet the Guyana Agricultural Workers Union because the arrangements fell through.
“There has not been a single activity or programme of the CLC that has not seen the involvement and participation of all the unions, regardless of their relation to the GTUC,” he said, adding that children and young workers who continue to benefit from the college include many who are themselves members of FITUG unions.
He said he would meet Luncheon at his convenience but to date he has not received a response from him.
