Mellissa Ifill

www.Facebook.com
2/15/19, 1:38PM

I really need to go back to my self-imposed fb silence ... sigh. So Mr. Freddie Kissoon lifted some comments I made about the management of UG and used it as justification for his stance to not vote for the APNU-AFC Coalition. I don't care how Mr. Kissoon votes. He has a right to vote however he wishes for whatever reason(s) he wishes. Freddie is my colleague and friend however, I am uncomfortable with my views being used in contexts within which I never intended. I actually do not attribute much blame to the government for the state of the University. I'll explain. It will be a little long (ok very haha) so bear with me. The University Act and Statutes give great power to the sitting Minister of Education to appoint Council members to represent different groups, including indigenous people, the medical association, farmers, legal practitioners among others. Under previous PPP administrations, the University's Council was dominated by PPP MP's, members and sympathisers. So prior to the change in government, Gail Texiera represented women, Bibi Shaddick represented lawyers, Yvonne Pearson represented Indigenous Peoples, Dharakumar Seeraj represented farmers, Odinga Lumumba represented the governing party, Nirmal Rekha represented the Ministry of Finance, Prem Misir was pro chancellor, Damone Younge represented lawyers, Samuel Goolsarran represented the private sector and Melcita Bovell represented the Ministry of Education. Council meetings were completely farcical. I knew when the PPP wanted to get a particular item approved because those who hardly attended meetings including Pearson and Seeraj turned up. This is the nature of the Council that Mr. Kissoon knew and like me, sat in. Each of the named individuals above based on my recall voted entirely under the direction/guidance or in solidarity with the then government's bulldog Gail Texiera during two years of my sitting on the Council with them. In times past, hiring procedures were 'fluid' so ministers repeatedly 'sent' CVs to faculties requesting individuals be hired and of course final sanctioning of decisions made by the Appointments Committee needed to go to Council for ratification and it is within this context we had the penalisation of Mr. Kissoon along with two other lecturers who the PPP didn't appreciate, the 'dismissal' of Dr. Mark Kirton as interim VC etc. The Unions fought hard and long for the institutionalisation of transparent and fair hiring procedures. This was the approach used to hire Professor Griffith. The APNU/AFC coalition gave no instruction to the search committee and Prof. Griffith presented himself best. His academic credentials were unmatched and he emerged above all in the 4 evaluations held at Turkeyen and Tain involving different stakeholders. He was not a unanimous candidate but the overwhelming majority scored him the highest. I was aware of the sentiments expressed that he was favoured by the coalition and that might have been the case but no attempt was made to influence the composition of the search committee or the candidate to be appointed as VC. It is why I am upset by the approach of Prof. Griffith who constantly pushes candidates personally known to him or selected by him for positions who haven't gone through proper procedures - his director of strategic initiatives, the dean and assistant dean of SEBI, the heads of all the Institutes he established - all personally chosen by the VC because he believed them to be the 'best person for the job'. My response always was, they might well be - but let us verify that by allowing them compete for the job. He seemed unconcerned that whenever he leaves UG, the recruitment system that we fought so hard to build will be left in tatters and can be exploited by a government with a similar orientation as previous PPP administrations. The Unions felt then (and still) that the best way to insulate the university from political machinations was to reform the UG Act to depoliticise the University - to remove the possibility of political interference and corruption by eliminating the power of the Minister of Education to determine the majority of Council members. This required parliamentary sanction. We submitted a petition to the Parliament which died when the parliament was prorogued. We met then MoE Dr. Rupert Roopnarine on several occasions asking him to restart the process. If I blame the APNU/AFC for anything, it would be not following through on the work of the select committee to reform UG's Act in an expeditious manner - thus leaving the university open to political manipulation - from itself or any other administration in the future. To his credit, although Dr. Roopnaraine did not push the Act update process forward, he did not unilaterally appoint Council members. We asked and he agreed to approach organisations representing the interest groups named in the Act to send representatives. We insisted that the government allow the Council to function unhindered. To its credit, the coalition did just that. It is such a Council that denied the VC's request for the downtown campus. What Mr. Kissoon is now recommending is akin to government interference to determine who runs the university and how it is run. I am entirely opposed to that approach. It is such an environment that led to his dismissal. The Council needs to fulfil its mandate and those appointed need to act with integrity and prudence and insist on proper and timely documentation from the administration and if violations of Council instructions occur, these instances must attract censure and sanction. I don't want the government choosing UG's Vice Chancellor. This must remain the function of its Council but a Council that is insulated from political interference and dominance. Let me also state that in the three plus years of the coalition in power, university staff saw a notable increase in salaries - between 33 and 37% for academic and non academic staff - far, far, far beyond what we would have ever gotten from the PPP which was extremely hostile to the Unions and the university generally. We achieved the largest percentage increase in salaries in my 18 years at UG in 2016. The Unions had approached the President and the Minister of Finance directly and pitched their case. They heard us. We did not get what we demanded but we did not feel disrespected. We however did not wish to negotiate directly with the government nor did it wish to negotiate with us so the government agreed to increase UG's subvention annually to facilitate in part increased remuneration for staff. This has occurred. It is on this basis that the Unions approached subsequent negotiations with the administration. It is on this basis that the Unions question how these increased subventions annually have been spent and demand accountability. So, whoever screen shot or copied my first comments, please be so kind as to copy these and send to my friend Freddie. There are failings of the coalition but their treatment of UG -barring not acting with alacrity on the issue of changing the Act - in my assessment is not one of them. Phew ... ah done! If you tired reading, think about how I tired writing!