When the University of Guyana (UG) was established in 1963 by statute under the premiership of Dr. Cheddi Jagan it was designed to provide a place of education, learning and research of a standard required and expected of a university of the highest standard. Fifty years on, according to a recent consultancy for “the Review and Enhancement of the Regulatory Framework and Operational Processes, Systems and Structures at the University of Guyana”by Trevor Hamilton and Associates, financed by the Caribbean Development Bank, the institution is facing a multitude of problems, ranging from governance to maintenance, from teaching to administration, from research to finance. In what the authors describe as a Revised Draft Final Report they make twenty-seven recommendations to address not only the serious financial problems facing the University and its two campuses but also its entire structure and operations with their multitude of deficiencies, weaknesses and shortcomings.
Like the National Insurance Scheme the problems of the University have festered and worsened as the recommendations of successive initiatives seem to have been considered too dire for attention. The report by Hamilton and Associates reminds us that the University of Guyana has been the subject of two major studies over the past sixteen years. Both of those studies – the Presidential Commission on UG (1996) and the 2009-2012 Strategic Plan – have sought to determine the imperatives for improving UG’s effectiveness, efficiency and governance and capacities and gave the Government, the Council and the Executive the necessary strategies and resources to fulfill them.
The publication of the report follows closely on the highly publicised comment by recently appointed Vice Chancellor and Principal Jacob Opadeyi that if the University is to be rebranded a high quality tertiary institution, its administrators must, among other things, find ways to increase the “ridiculously low” tuition fees currently paid by students.
V-C Opadeyi added that there is an economic cost attached to running the University and in a display of either courage or naiveté argued that that cost “should not be borne by government subventions”. With the best intention in the world, Professor Opadeyi might wish to familiarise himself with the directive principle in Article 27 of the Guyana Constitution that “Every citizen has the right to free education from nursery to university as well as at non-formal places where opportunities are provided for education and training”.
Ram & McRae is mindful that the government must allocate its limited resources carefully, fairly and efficiently in the interest of all its citizens. But if the Directive Principles in the Constitution were placed there tautologically or cosmetically they would not be reinforced by Article 39 which requires Parliament, the Government, the courts and all other public agencies to be guided in their discharge of their functions by those principles.
The report is comprehensive but far too conservative. In suggesting that the statutes of the University are similar to those of the University of the West Indies, the authors could only be talking about form and not substance. To suggest that the Council needs only minor modifications to make it even more broad-based is to show a complete unfamiliarity with the politicisation from which the University has suffered since the days of Walter Rodney.
Even as the authors sought to show deference to those responsible for the University’s governance, they have been damning on the structure and operations over which they have presided. For example they find that the HR system is extremely inadequate; that the quality assurance system needs to be more robust; that there are seven major gaps in the teaching, research and learning process; that the library, ICT and student services have some major deficiencies; that the management and systems for examinations lack basic manuals and proper administration; that there is no overarching fiscal framework to align government’s fiscal support; that the Maintenance line staff have major skills deficiencies. Might we add that this diagnosis is hardly a good reference to any of the students who will soon be graduating from the institution.
With such formidable deficiencies it is hardly surprising that the University is facing acute financial difficulties. To put it bluntly the University is insolvent (current assets of G$133 million dollars, current liabilities of G$670 million dollars at July 31, 2012). It stays afloat and in business by, among other things, avoiding its obligations to pay over moneys it collects as a trustee under the tax and social security laws.
The Hamilton Report is no different or better than those that have preceded it. It is politically correct to a fault. The reality is that the government appears unconvinced of the virtues of a top quality tertiary institution which it can only control with a heavy political hand while the private sector engages more in cocktail jokes about the quality of UG’s graduates than in supporting it with their time, their money and their goodwill.
The University did not need another study. The problems are palpable from the time one enters the Turkeyen campus. Facilities are practically non-existent and the part-time law lecturers refer to their stipend as gas money, having to use their own personal resources for research. It is not the way to run a secondary school, let alone a University.
The test of the Government’s seriousness would have been whether it would provide the funds to erase the $1 billion accumulated deficit. And enough money to bring the University up to an acceptable standard to make the goal set fifty years ago a medium term possibility. Budget 2013 includes $1.250 billion – net of student loans – for specific items: feasibility studies, rehabilitation of labs, internet access, development of online programmes, etc. The accumulated deficit is therefore likely to increase.
We are not sure of the wisdom of investing $50 million to establish online programmes when so many of the programmes currently offered lack accreditation and are in dire need of review.
Budget 2013 allocation is inadequate and an unfortunate response to Hamilton. Providing the people for a competitive economy and stemming the rate at which graduates emigrate require a more creative approach to the challenges facing education generally as well as the University of Guyana. Raising fees will not solve that bigger problem.
