Dear Editor,
More than five months ago the University of Guyana community had great difficulties with actions taken by its Council, the highest decision-making body of the institution.
Following accepted procedure, questions were raised and directed to the Council; the Academic Board requested a meeting with that body and the Deans met with the Chairman of the Council in order to have many grave concerns addressed. This discussion with the Chairman (who is the Pro Chancellor) worsened rather than advanced the situation. The University community took measures to back up its call for a meeting and to register dissatisfaction with what had been done and the way it had been done.
Two members of the Council responded by launching a vicious campaign in the media against the University. This strategy included the isolation and vilification of the Deans, the introduction of red herrings, ad hominem attacks and using the University Convocation to divert attention from the real issues. When the Academic Board expected internal dialogue to resolve the matter, it was turned into a public dispute, reduced to personal attacks in the press, aimed at (as it was put) some of the Deans and a handful of academics, with a misrepresentation of the issues.
However, the decisions of the Council that caused the conflict were sufficiently serious and sufficiently threatening to the institution’s reputation, to have evoked united action from all sections of the university community. Far from being the doing of “some Deans”, the action initiated came out of decisions taken and supported by the Committee of Deans, including unanimous agreement by all six Deans, two meetings of the academic staff, each attended by in excess of 100 lecturers, three meetings of the Academic Board, including representatives of the Berbice Campus, and constant contact with lecturers at Tain.
These members of the University were pilloried by the two Council members and an orchestrated campaign of letters in the press.
After deciding to take protest action to register its outrage, the Academic Board changed its original position and met as a Board of Examiners so as to move Convocation out of the way as an issue and in order not to risk alienating students, graduands and their families.
It is therefore of interest to note that up to the time of writing there has been no meeting between the Council and the Academic Board to address the University’s concerns.
What makes matters infinitely worse is that on at least four occasions dates were fixed for a meeting and, on each occasion, these dates were shifted and then cancelled at the last moment with no reasons given and no explanations offered.
This attitude of the Pro Chancellor, chairman of Council, is among the many issues that the university community has with the operations of the Council. It is an insulting brushing aside of the university community which can lead its members to be convinced that they are treated with disregard and disrespect and the best interest of the University is not a priority on the agenda.
The University community has been publicly denounced for rising up against these attitudes. Since December 2007 up to the present time, what should be done to them now? Should they be praised for their seemingly infinite patience and good behaviour ? or once more inveighed against for failing to protect the University against decisions that are unacceptable and that threaten its integrity and international reputation ?
These acts of the Council were unconstitutional, procedurally improper, unreasonable and in bad faith.
They include the manner in which the Council has gone about changes to the University Statutes, which have been done by way of on the spot decisions. No papers were tabled, no notice given, no consultations held with the Administration, and the matters were not even placed as agenda items at the meetings.
This was at the root of the problem raised in October 2007 when extremely important and wide-ranging changes were enacted. Council wanted to remove the Bursar and the Internal Auditor from under the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor and have them report to the Council. This would seriously undermine the authority, efficiency and effectiveness of the Head of the university who would be accountable and have responsibility for the administration of the institution but would have no power over its financial management, financial decisions, or the investigation of any irregularities. This was also another of the acts that would reduce the power of the Vice-chancellor as Head of the university.
They include the Council directly making academic appointments and promotions, functions given by Statute to the Appointments Committee. The UG community objected in October 2007 when the Council decided to appoint and promote an ineligible Temporary Lecturer. Although there have since been satisfactory developments in this specific case, the principles involved have universal implications. The academic community has no quarrel with the individual, contrary to the way the matter was miscued in the media campaign. Because of what was purported in the media, it is important to explain a crucial factor.
It was argued in the press that the gentleman was well qualified academically and that questions would be raised about UG if it was rejecting such a qualified person.
However, several much more serious and damaging judgements would be made against the integrity and academic credibility of UG if the Council can, on its own, appoint and promote academic staff against the Statutes and the approved procedures.
There was also concern for the continued and repeated insulting remarks made by the Director of the Berbice Campus against lecturers from the Turkeyen Campus who commute to conduct courses at Tain.
The academics took temporary action to protest this, but the remarks were repeated and there is a concern that they were made in meetings of the Council, as well as in public.
Again, it is necessary to correct statements made in the press to the effect that no one could find the evidence that these remarks were made.
On the contrary, three Deans cited specific occasions on which they personally heard the Director’s invectives, made on one occasion, at a public event.
It is necessary at this point to underline the fact that in November last year the University was caned in public for taking action on these matters.
What would those flagellators have the university members do now ?
Yours faithfully,
Al Creighton
