UG Council
By Stabroek staff | Editorial | Sunday, January 29, 2012
Source
On October 18 last, we carried a report about the University of Guyana Workers’ Union saying they would be taking legal action against UG “if moves by the government representatives on the University Council to terminate the contracts of a number of lecturers are successful.” That, of course was a little over a month before the elections, and in the event, no move was taken in that direction. However, various names were floated in other parts of the media as to who was included on the ‘list,’ and one of these was Mr Frederick Kissoon, a lecturer at the institution for the last twenty-six years.
A month later, it was revealed that Mr Kissoon’s contract had indeed been terminated by the Council of the university on January 18, lending credence to the earlier stories, which were, incidentally, never officially denied by UG. Mr Kissoon, as everyone is very well aware, is an abrasive critic of the PPP/C government and as a columnist of Kaieteur News has a public space where he can air his views. Given that the accusation has been made that it was only the government representatives on the Council – Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira, Secretary to the Treasury Nirmal Rekha, Ms Bibi Shadick, Pro-Chancellor Prem Misir and Ms Indra Chandarpal – who decided on Mr Kissoon’s effective dismissal and that the other four members did not concur, and since no reasons have been advanced by the Council for the decision, the public has drawn two conclusions: firstly, that the lecturer’s contract was determined for political reasons, and secondly, that this decision came from the highest echelons of government.
Never mind that the administration insists it had no input and that it was a matter for the UG Council alone (this is what Prime Minister Burnham said too when Dr Walter Rodney was denied a teaching post at UG); it will be difficult to persuade the public that the government representatives on the Council would have acted independently of any directive from senior levels of government, given the expected consequences of their action. After all, as mentioned above, the issue appears to have first come up in October, and the implication is that it was postponed because it could potentially have left an adverse impression in the context of the election campaign.
What is known so far is that having reached retirement age, Mr Kissoon last year was given a one-year contract which was due to expire in August. In the light of that, why on earth, one wonders, was the contract not allowed to run its course, given that its expiry date was only a few months away. What is even more puzzling is the fact that the decision was made without the Council members involved having any notion about the availability of a substitute to teach Mr Kissoon’s course(s) for the new semester which begins tomorrow. In the process of targeting Mr Kissoon, therefore, the students have become collateral damage, so to speak.
As we reported last week, when this newspaper asked Mr O’Neil Greaves, the Dean of the Social Sciences Faculty the reason for the termination, all he would say was that it was based on performance. Instead, both he and Pro-Chancellor Prem Misir directed all enquiries on the matter to Registrar (ag) Dr Theodosius Velloza who had signed the termination letter. However, as far as this newspaper is concerned, that particular official appears to have gone into hibernation, since numerous attempts to contact him have ended in failure. It might be added, that the termination letter itself does not contain the reason for the dismissal.
Herein lies the first major problem. No lecturer should have their contract abruptly ended without having first being informed, in writing, of the reason for this, and then given an opportunity to defend him or herself; at the very least this is a denial of natural justice. In fact, if the academic authorities were unhappy, one wonders why at the level of the head of faculty concerns had not been raised with Mr Kissoon long before the question of determining the contract arose; after all, he had been there for twenty-six years. If indeed it transpired after discussions with him that there was any merit in the complaints, he could at least have had an opportunity to put himself in order.
As we reported in our edition yesterday, UG economist, Dr Thomas Singh, said that the university statutes and regulations had a procedure for when a possible termination arose; a charge in writing would first be laid, and the lecturer concerned then would be given an opportunity to ask for a special committee to review the charge. This was what was done in the case of Mr Evan Persaud, but that no procedure had been followed in the case of Mr Freddie Kissoon. It constitutes by any standards a miscarriage of justice, and is evidence of a lack of fairness in how the Council is operating.
One wonders too what kind of tertiary institution worth its name in any other democracy would not only fail to indicate what the reason for a dismissal was in a termination letter, but would state therein that the recipient would not again be employed by the university in any capacity, even on a part-time basis? This suggests vengefulness of an order that would embarrass any normal rational official.
Rationality, fairness and abiding by the rules, however, have never been the hallmark of the PPP/C. Neither, it might be added, has transparency. The UG Public Relations Division, in a press release noteworthy for its lack of clarification, said that recent news items relating to the meeting of January 18 “contain errors of fact, misguided deductions and information without a context for its evaluation.” Exactly what they were referring to was never explained, and after burbling on in general terms about matters being referred from the Appointments Committee, and the various university criteria relating to recruitment and appointment, the public was then sternly reminded that the “council’s deliberations are confidential and that the university does not disclose information that is privileged in its relationship with its staff, applicants for employment or other persons being considered for employment.” No doubt. But in this instance the Council has not seen fit to reveal to Mr Kissoon either the reason for his dismissal, something as said above which he is entitled to know and should have a right to answer – and that is an entirely different kettle of fish. If there were indeed sound reasons for his dismissal, what were they afraid of? Terminations of contracts which are so shrouded in secrecy that not even the lecturer concerned can be privy to the reasons, characterise the modus operandi of a police state, not an open society, and most certainly not a university supposedly functioning in an open society.
What the entire incident does highlight, however, is that the statutes of the university are in urgent need of revision, and in particular, the composition of the UG Council has to change. Reviewing and then amending the university statutes and rules as a whole will take time, but perhaps the opposition should investigate the possibilities of some reform which targets the composition of the Council alone in the interim.
The university has many problems, one of which is the degree to which politics has interfered in its operations and decision-making. De-politicising UG is not going to happen in a hurry, but the process has to begin at the highest level – ie the University Council. While it could be argued that the government should be represented on that body, it should never be in a position to control decision-making by virtue of a majority; a situation such as the existing one leads to political considerations taking precedence over those which might be in the interest of the institution and the interest of fairness and justice. The ruling party, it might be added, has never been very good at divorcing what it perceives to be its own interest from that of the official bodies which it dominates.
This whole episode will do our only university great damage. Why would anyone want to come and teach there (all other things being equal) if they could not be assured that as with other tertiary institutions of learning in the democratic world, it is a free forum for the generation and exchange of ideas, freedom of expression is respected, and they do not have to be constantly looking over their shoulder in case at some shadowy, politically-tainted Council meeting their contract is summarily terminated without explanation.
And as for the current imbroglio, the Council needs to backtrack. It should first of all reverse its termination decision in relation to Mr Kissoon, and then, if in the view of the academic authorities (not the Council) there is some egregious case to answer, follow the procedures laid down in the statutes and regulations to the letter.
By Stabroek staff | Editorial | Sunday, January 29, 2012
Source
On October 18 last, we carried a report about the University of Guyana Workers’ Union saying they would be taking legal action against UG “if moves by the government representatives on the University Council to terminate the contracts of a number of lecturers are successful.” That, of course was a little over a month before the elections, and in the event, no move was taken in that direction. However, various names were floated in other parts of the media as to who was included on the ‘list,’ and one of these was Mr Frederick Kissoon, a lecturer at the institution for the last twenty-six years.
A month later, it was revealed that Mr Kissoon’s contract had indeed been terminated by the Council of the university on January 18, lending credence to the earlier stories, which were, incidentally, never officially denied by UG. Mr Kissoon, as everyone is very well aware, is an abrasive critic of the PPP/C government and as a columnist of Kaieteur News has a public space where he can air his views. Given that the accusation has been made that it was only the government representatives on the Council – Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira, Secretary to the Treasury Nirmal Rekha, Ms Bibi Shadick, Pro-Chancellor Prem Misir and Ms Indra Chandarpal – who decided on Mr Kissoon’s effective dismissal and that the other four members did not concur, and since no reasons have been advanced by the Council for the decision, the public has drawn two conclusions: firstly, that the lecturer’s contract was determined for political reasons, and secondly, that this decision came from the highest echelons of government.
Never mind that the administration insists it had no input and that it was a matter for the UG Council alone (this is what Prime Minister Burnham said too when Dr Walter Rodney was denied a teaching post at UG); it will be difficult to persuade the public that the government representatives on the Council would have acted independently of any directive from senior levels of government, given the expected consequences of their action. After all, as mentioned above, the issue appears to have first come up in October, and the implication is that it was postponed because it could potentially have left an adverse impression in the context of the election campaign.
What is known so far is that having reached retirement age, Mr Kissoon last year was given a one-year contract which was due to expire in August. In the light of that, why on earth, one wonders, was the contract not allowed to run its course, given that its expiry date was only a few months away. What is even more puzzling is the fact that the decision was made without the Council members involved having any notion about the availability of a substitute to teach Mr Kissoon’s course(s) for the new semester which begins tomorrow. In the process of targeting Mr Kissoon, therefore, the students have become collateral damage, so to speak.
As we reported last week, when this newspaper asked Mr O’Neil Greaves, the Dean of the Social Sciences Faculty the reason for the termination, all he would say was that it was based on performance. Instead, both he and Pro-Chancellor Prem Misir directed all enquiries on the matter to Registrar (ag) Dr Theodosius Velloza who had signed the termination letter. However, as far as this newspaper is concerned, that particular official appears to have gone into hibernation, since numerous attempts to contact him have ended in failure. It might be added, that the termination letter itself does not contain the reason for the dismissal.
Herein lies the first major problem. No lecturer should have their contract abruptly ended without having first being informed, in writing, of the reason for this, and then given an opportunity to defend him or herself; at the very least this is a denial of natural justice. In fact, if the academic authorities were unhappy, one wonders why at the level of the head of faculty concerns had not been raised with Mr Kissoon long before the question of determining the contract arose; after all, he had been there for twenty-six years. If indeed it transpired after discussions with him that there was any merit in the complaints, he could at least have had an opportunity to put himself in order.
As we reported in our edition yesterday, UG economist, Dr Thomas Singh, said that the university statutes and regulations had a procedure for when a possible termination arose; a charge in writing would first be laid, and the lecturer concerned then would be given an opportunity to ask for a special committee to review the charge. This was what was done in the case of Mr Evan Persaud, but that no procedure had been followed in the case of Mr Freddie Kissoon. It constitutes by any standards a miscarriage of justice, and is evidence of a lack of fairness in how the Council is operating.
One wonders too what kind of tertiary institution worth its name in any other democracy would not only fail to indicate what the reason for a dismissal was in a termination letter, but would state therein that the recipient would not again be employed by the university in any capacity, even on a part-time basis? This suggests vengefulness of an order that would embarrass any normal rational official.
Rationality, fairness and abiding by the rules, however, have never been the hallmark of the PPP/C. Neither, it might be added, has transparency. The UG Public Relations Division, in a press release noteworthy for its lack of clarification, said that recent news items relating to the meeting of January 18 “contain errors of fact, misguided deductions and information without a context for its evaluation.” Exactly what they were referring to was never explained, and after burbling on in general terms about matters being referred from the Appointments Committee, and the various university criteria relating to recruitment and appointment, the public was then sternly reminded that the “council’s deliberations are confidential and that the university does not disclose information that is privileged in its relationship with its staff, applicants for employment or other persons being considered for employment.” No doubt. But in this instance the Council has not seen fit to reveal to Mr Kissoon either the reason for his dismissal, something as said above which he is entitled to know and should have a right to answer – and that is an entirely different kettle of fish. If there were indeed sound reasons for his dismissal, what were they afraid of? Terminations of contracts which are so shrouded in secrecy that not even the lecturer concerned can be privy to the reasons, characterise the modus operandi of a police state, not an open society, and most certainly not a university supposedly functioning in an open society.
What the entire incident does highlight, however, is that the statutes of the university are in urgent need of revision, and in particular, the composition of the UG Council has to change. Reviewing and then amending the university statutes and rules as a whole will take time, but perhaps the opposition should investigate the possibilities of some reform which targets the composition of the Council alone in the interim.
The university has many problems, one of which is the degree to which politics has interfered in its operations and decision-making. De-politicising UG is not going to happen in a hurry, but the process has to begin at the highest level – ie the University Council. While it could be argued that the government should be represented on that body, it should never be in a position to control decision-making by virtue of a majority; a situation such as the existing one leads to political considerations taking precedence over those which might be in the interest of the institution and the interest of fairness and justice. The ruling party, it might be added, has never been very good at divorcing what it perceives to be its own interest from that of the official bodies which it dominates.
This whole episode will do our only university great damage. Why would anyone want to come and teach there (all other things being equal) if they could not be assured that as with other tertiary institutions of learning in the democratic world, it is a free forum for the generation and exchange of ideas, freedom of expression is respected, and they do not have to be constantly looking over their shoulder in case at some shadowy, politically-tainted Council meeting their contract is summarily terminated without explanation.
And as for the current imbroglio, the Council needs to backtrack. It should first of all reverse its termination decision in relation to Mr Kissoon, and then, if in the view of the academic authorities (not the Council) there is some egregious case to answer, follow the procedures laid down in the statutes and regulations to the letter.
