Dear Editor,
The following response is to a letter `Unless there is a change in GTUC’s stance on university matters, UG unions will withdraw from it’ emanating from the UGSSA and UGWU that was published in the Stabroek News of 30th May, 2019.
I must categorically state that I was never approached by any of the UG union representatives for support on any issue at the University of Guyana since I have been attending Council meetings as the GTUC Representative. I noted with concern that there were repeated calls for my removal from Council by the UG Unions. However, I was not allowed or granted the opportunity to meet with the unions’ representatives and the TUC to listen to or address their concerns and possibly arrive at a position. I was called by Mr. Freddie Kissoon requesting that I should resign from the Council for the Union leaders felt that I was not supporting their views. In this context, I was surprised that every issue raised at Council was in the public domain and the minutes of the meetings shared with any person. It was my view the operations of any board requires confidentiality. It appears as though UG Council meetings should be treated like town meetings.
Since my appointment to the UG Council, I was actively involved in the Appointments Committee and the Finance and General Purpose Committee. I was a member of several interviewing panels as requested by the Appointments Committee. Very often I made a special effort to attend even at great sacrifice. I have always sought to adopt an objective posture. I was never briefed by the TUC that I was required to agree with every statement or position by the unions at UG. My knowledge of the operations of the University Board is that the board influences policy, and ensures effective and efficient governance of the university. The obvious struggle between the unions and the University Administration is predicated on the lack of a structured approach relative to addressing the myriad issues which are often tabled by the two parties.
Below represents the list of complaints the UG unions submitted to the TUC leadership which was forwarded to me for a response.
Complaint #1. In circumstances where the Government of Guyana had only months earlier bailed the University out of debt, Mr. English voted in favour of a proposal to purchase a brand new, latest edition of an expensive SUV for use by the incoming VC, notwithstanding the availability of a perfectly good and relatively new executive car that had been used by the previous VC.
Response- The decision for the purchase of a new vehicle for the new Vice-Chancellor in 2016 emanated from the UG’s administration. It was posited that there was a need for an appropriate vehicle for the VC since the existing vehicle was fully depreciated. This received the general support of Council except for the opposing vote of the Union representative. I am aware that certain protocols are necessary for certain offices. In this context the office of VC fits the bill. I never knew the VC personally. I saw him for the first time when he came to UG. Therefore, I have no personal agenda where he is concerned. I responded to the issue at hand and not the person.
Complaint #2. Mr. English also supported the University’s hosting of the Education Resource Ambassadors conference between July 23-25, 2016 – an enormously expensive undertaking which was held at the Marriott Hotel and for which the incoming Vice Chancellor had committed the University to pay for the accommodation of over 40 ‘ambassadors’ from the diaspora at the Marriott
Response- If the University is to rightly position itself there must be stakeholder engagements and effective marketing. Business experience advises the way one presents or sells him or herself and their business will determine the level of responsiveness of others to their cause. The hosting of receptions for guests who travelled at their own expense to support your institution could be regarded as the very least the institution could do. In a general context this is a historical norm for an organization to host its guests.
Complaint #3- In November 2016, Mr. English supported the revision of rates for allowances payable to University officials on local and overseas travel. These rates were copied from rates paid to the President of Guyana and the Ministers of Government and included business class travel for officials identified as ‘Category A’ – the VC, his cabinet and members of Council.
Response- I am not aware of this claim or issue. This unfortunately is dishonest. I do not recall voting on any issue of this nature. I cannot discuss unless the tape is provided. However, based on my experience in the Public Service, I know that allowances were pegged to the rates stipulated by the United Nations based on the particular country that was being visited.
Complaint #4- Mr. English in April 2017 supported the VC’s proposal for the vanity project of a downtown campus to house the new School of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation.
Response- I supported the setting up of the new School for Entrepreneurship and Businesses Innovation, and for there to be an off campus facility subject to the working out of the requisite modalities, given that UG operates in a competitive environment and business strategies must cater to the myriad changes that are taking place on a daily basis in the society. It is known in the culture of organizations, that if you continue to use the same methods of operating from year to year you would have the same results unless there is a miracle. I felt that UG needed to modify its approaches to doing business and become more relevant as a contemporary institution of higher learning.
Complaint #5 -Incredibly, notwithstanding the 2016 SUV purchase, during the 2018 budget discussions, the administration proposed buying another luxury vehicle.
Response- I supported the purchase of a double cab 4×4 vehicle to transport staff and materials/equipment between the Berbice Campus and the Turkeyen Campus as against a car because of its appropriateness, for safety reasons and its suitability. This type of vehicle is used by all of the Government Ministries for out of town trips. It is unfortunate that the Unions’ Representatives are unaware of this. In a general context, the purchase of a car as against a double cab 4×4 vehicle would not have materially changed UG’s financial position. The reality is that there is an over-dependence on Government subventions. UG needs to adopt a business-oriented approach to engender its sustainability.
Complaint #6- More recently, in February 2019, Mr. English was appointed by the Pro-Chancellor to chair a Council intervention into the dispute between the administration and the Unions over 2018 wages and salaries negotiations. During the meeting he displayed such hostility towards the Unions and workers of the University that we were forced to request that he be removed as Chairperson.
Response- This is misleading and unfortunate and dishonest. The Unions’ representatives were visibly upset because I suggested that there should be a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Unions and the University Administration. This I felt would remove a number of the issues from the agenda that are brought to Council that could be resolved through the said agreement. Their objections were on personal grounds and this was confirmed by the letter of the unions in the mainstream newspaper on Thursday May, 30th which stated that they were seeking my removal from Council. In this regard, there was no due process since I was not given the opportunity to respond. Consequently, I have decided to respond since it was placed in the media.
Response # 7-The final instance mentioned here will be the one already alluded to in our first email. The GTUC’s nominee voted to enable the Vice-Chancellor to be paid in lieu of leave and so not proceed on leave.
Response- Paying a person for leave is not a recent phenomenon. A person is paid for leave, based on “exigencies of the service” and it is guided by functionality rather than rank, status or tenure. Perhaps the unions could use this to foster their own claims for similar considerations for staff based on the exigencies of the service for which precedent exists at UG and elsewhere.
It is obvious that the unions’ representatives do not have a full grasp relative to the roles of management as against those of Council of UG. I noted that even in instances where a policy issue is obviously beneficial to the institution the union representative abstains. I do not wish to be sucked into the very contemptuous engagements that the union representative on Council pursues with the VC. I think my role is to support policy formulation and not to slavishly and blindly support a position by a union without that position being meticulously assessed for appropriateness and relevance.
In 2016, the sum of $500,000,000 was given by Central Government as a provisional sum to help in addressing critical needs at the UG. The Unions argued that all of the money should go to pay for salary increases. I advised that there should be consideration given to the issue of sustainability of that provision from Government, for once salaries are raised, they cannot be arbitrarily reduced going forward. I do not see how this constitutes an anti-working class stance. My fear is that the unrelenting public spats between the UG’s Unions and the Administration would not only tarnish the image of the university internationally but diminish public confidence in the institution nationally.
Yours faithfully,
Ivor B. English
GTUC Representative- University of Guyana
Council
