The University of Guyana Senior Staff Association (UGSSA) and the University of Guyana Workers Union (UGWU) have flatly rejected the evaluation process currently being implemented by the Council to assess the performance of the Vice Chancellor Professor Ivelaw Griffith.
In a joint statement released yesterday by the UGSSA and the UGWU, the two unions are viewing the evaluation process as “inadequate, incomplete, restrictive and wholly unsatisfactory” and not in keeping with best practice.
According to the unions, the current evaluation design neglects to do the following:
Involve the University’s most critical stakeholders – students and staff – as part of the evaluation exercise of the Vice-Chancellor
Involve qualified external reviewers
Conduct a site (physical plant) evaluation
Instead, the evaluation process being used involves:
A self-evaluation by the Vice Chancellor.
Individual assessment by members of Council of the Vice-Chancellor.
This latter aspect of the process, the unions claim, is problematic since several members of the Council had indicated that they were not aware of what was going on in the University which is not surprising, they state, since Council has not been furnished with all the information requested, particularly with regard to the University’s finances. “Incredibly these well-meaning members are expected to evaluate the Vice-Chancellor, and their views will be the determining factor in the process,” they added.
In addition, the unions are also claiming that some other members of Council have indicated that even in the absence of an evaluation, the Vice-Chancellor has their unwavering support. This stance is being viewed as problematic, given they say, Council’s responsibilities to the institution.
“The concerns of the institution should be placed first, and loyalty to an individual should not feature in decision-making,” is the unions’ view on this matter.
Further, the Unions have reason to believe that the views expressed by certain representatives/nominees on Council do not align with those of the groups/bodies they purport to represent and noted, “These Council members will also have their views count ahead of the views of members of staff, who must live every day with the consequences of their decisions.”
The UG unions have emphasised that “repeated” attempts have been made to have staff members’ concerns be taken seriously by the council and include:
The Unions’ nominee to Council made four separate documented attempts to have Council set up a mechanism to look into serious internal complaints.
The Unions requested that Council meet with staff. Out of this request four Listening Sessions were held – three sessions at Turkeyen and one at the Berbice campus. To date, Council has not discussed these sessions.
The statement notes that although the President was written to twice concerning this matter (the second letter to him was copied to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance), the Unions are “dissatisfied with the stance adopted by the Government of Guyana on the UG crisis.”
It goes on to state that several attempts were made to have a meeting with the Minister of Education which never materialised. However, the Ministry of Education’s representative on the UG Council had written in May to support the payment of the Vice-Chancellor in lieu of leave, “Incredibly, even after all the concerns about the process and about the financial position of the University were outlined.” Additionally, the Unions state, the Ministry of Education representative at the Council meeting of 23rd May had indicated that the Ministry was in favour of the Vice-Chancellor being given another contract even without an evaluation.
“We find it difficult to understand the positions adopted of the Ministry, given that they are very aware of all the problems within the University. We would like to ask why has this stance been adopted, given that the University is a public one, and the tax-payers of Guyana are the ones who deserve to know how their money is being spent, and to feel confident that it is being spent wisely.”
The Unions stated that a dossier highlighting all the concerns being raised is being prepared and will be shared publicly so that “…the Guyanese public can see the concerns the Council and the Minister of Education apparently refuse to take seriously.”
According to the statement, the Unions will continue to insist that a proper evaluation of the Vice-Chancellor is required and that a management audit as well as a financial audit of the period June 2016 to June 2019 be carried out. They are also adamant that the Vice-Chancellor’s contract must not be renewed or extended unless a proper evaluation, a management audit and a financial audit are completed.
