The workings of the University of Guyana are shrouded in mystery as far as outsiders are concerned, and even the periodic flashes of publicity do little to illuminate how the institution is administered. UG is, of course, a complicated bureaucracy which is governed by its own statutes and conventions, and whose academic processes of necessity have to follow stringent rules. Where strictly academic matters are concerned, the Academic Board is the ultimate authority at UG, but administrative matters do not fall under its purview. The highest decision-making body which has oversight of management affairs is the University of Guyana Council. It is chaired by the Pro-Chancellor, who – this function aside – traditionally has never had much real power, being largely confined to ceremonial and fund-raising duties. The Chancellor is in a similar position, since this too is primarily a ceremonial post, although the prestige of the incumbent can redound to the advantage of the institution.
The effective CEO of UG, and the person who bridges the divide between academia and management, has always been the Vice-Chancellor, who has jurisdiction over the senior officials of the university, and who chairs the Academic Board, among other responsibilities. He is assisted by a Deputy Vice-Chancellor, who apart from having specific duties, acts as Vice-Chancellor in the latter’s absence. When both these officials are away for some reason, then the Committee of Deans, comprising the deans of the various faculties and other senior university officers function on their behalf.
After the Vice-Chancellor, the two most important university officers are the Registrar and the Bursar, the first of whom holds responsibility for the gamut of student matters in addition to the university records, while the Bursar, of course, is in charge of the institution’s finances. As with other officers of UG, both of them answer to the Vice-Chancellor.
The Council, whose meetings are held at regular, but not close intervals, for obvious reasons has not generally dealt with day-to-day administrative matters. As such, therefore, it has been largely a policy-making body, although that has not prevented it from interfering in specific issues in the past. Some of its powers are delegated to various committees, such as the Appointments Committee, which, as its name indicates, deals with staffing issues according to set criteria.
On November 25, the Academic Board, the Committee of Deans, the “academic community” and the Senior Administrative Group (a kind of unofficial committee of senior, non-academic officials) published an advertisement in this newspaper registering concern about decisions of the Council taken on October 17, 2007. Among other things they drew attention to the amendment of the statutes of the university which would allow the Bursar and the Internal Auditor to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor, and made directly responsible to the Council itself.
They also adverted to conditions attached to the recent appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, which they did not specify, but which they said taken in conjunction with the earlier mentioned decisions, effectively eroded the powers of the Vice-Chancellor, transferring them to the Pro-Chancellor, who, it will be remembered, is the Chairman of the Council. Those who are familiar with power games will be persuaded that the analysis of the academic community is probably correct.
Their statement complained in particular about the way in which this major amendment to the university statutes had been undertaken, although it might be remarked that in a technical sense provided there was a quorum the Council may well have had the power to do what it did. However, it must also be said that even if that is so, possessing the power to do something and being justified in exercising it are not the same thing. Certainly a major amendment to the university statutes in order to effect a significant shift in power relations within the institution cannot be passed on whim, and should not be passed without a full prior debate involving the major stakeholders within UG. To do otherwise – and the academic community et al complained that no documentation had been prepared on the matter and it was not even an agenda item for the meeting – is to operate clandestinely, outside the spirit of the statutes, contrary to UG’s long-established conventions and in defiance of good governance.
But the apparent preference for opaqueness was further underlined by what the statement said was a directive from the Council that only the Pro-Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor could speak on behalf of the university. In an institution where freedom of speech should flourish, the Council seems to be seeking to operate as though it was the premier decision-making body in an Eastern European university before the fall of the Berlin Wall. As the academics and university officials pointed out, there are several other officers such as “Registrars, Deans, Directors