Dear Editor,
In a statement issued by University of Guyana councillors to “Set the record straight,” the claim is made that the Vice-Chancellor of the university, Prof L Carrington had breached the statutes of the university, which they sought to correct at a Council meeting on January, 18.
For decades it has been common knowledge that the university was not functioning effectively – the ship was listing heavily, and was in great danger of capsizing. Some well-wishers approached Prof Carrington and asked him to help ‘right the ship’ and set it back on course. Prof Carrington accepted the challenge. I do not think that any rational Guyanese would have expected Prof Carrington to adopt a business-as-usual approach in the conduct of the affairs of the institution.
A perusal of Rory Fraser’s tribute: ‘A job well done‘ (SN, January 30), is indicative of Prof Carrington’s stature and leadership: “He displayed the wisdom that only age, training and experience can bestow on those who were capable and enabled. A rare thing among Guyanese leaders today.” This observation is aptly illustrated when one compares Prof Carrington’s farewell address with the statement issued by the four UG councillors.
Perhaps the difference in sophistication helps to explain the inability on the part of some councillors to appreciate Prof Carrington’s leadership trait in action, to wit risk-taking.
Prof Carrington must have recognized two things soon after assuming office: a) that the institution was incapable of responding to changing environmental needs effectively; and, b) that the institution’s organizational and administrative structures were significant constraints on the institution’s ability to meet the needs of its strategic constituencies – the students, staff and the Guyanese society.
When the Vice-Chancellor was confronted with the urgent need to renew the contracts of certain faculty members in order that courses essential to the needs of certain students would be made available in a timely manner, rather than sacrifice the institution at the altar of archaic and moribund statutes, like a true leader he chose to do the right thing.
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the University of Guyana renewed the contracts of the faculty members. Some UG councillors disagreed with the CEO’s decision. They claimed that the Vice-Chancellor did not do things right – conduct business as usual. Is it not our penchant to conduct business as usual (avoiding risks), to a large measure, responsible for our present economic and social predicaments?
The Guyanese public ought to know the true reasons for the decision of those councillors who refused to renew the contracts at issue. Is it just a question of “age and performance”? Or, is there more in the mortar besides the pestle? When all things are considered, including the US$10 million, it would be interesting to know who stands to lose, and who will gain?
Yours faithfully,
Clarence O Perry
