Dear Editor,
There is the persistently much ado about the performance of UG’s Vice-Chancellor, all of which is not totally unjustified.
For one, his human resources management capacity seems to be consistently questioned by the various categories of the University’s staff, if only through their respective Unions.
And from a distance, one does not get the impression that the latter enjoy
appropriate empathy from the presiding U.G. Council.
The Council’s latest approach to decision-making in the matter of the Vice-Chancellor’s terminal leave, does not convince interested observers of its being an exercise grounded in dispassionate evaluation of the reported varying reactions of its members to the issue. Certainly the principle involved of payment for leave not taken deserved focused discussion, for it would definitely set a precedent for the subsequent treatment of staff in comparable circumstances.
Now the Vice-Chancellor is not only left to defend himself, but has put the Council in a similarly defensive position.
Some would wonder as to whether the apparent casual approach to decision-making in this instance represents par for the course.
In an academic institution where disciplined argumentation is encouraged, it becomes more difficult for students to accept a disposition which appears to be compromised by behaviour at the level of those who should be exemplars of the principles taught.
It is a contradiction which cannot go unnoticed, and which demands more explicit clarification for not only the learning population, but related observers.
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
