UG one year after new leadership

Jun 23, 2017 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

This month marks one year since the University of Guyana has been endowed with a brand new administration. I used the word, “administration” rather than administrator for two reasons; I do not want to personalize this column, even though the month marks one year of the tenure of Professor Ivelaw Griffith.
The second reason is that “administration” is more appropriate, because there has been a change in the format of leadership structure at UG over the past year.
UG now has what academics and leaders in the two unions have referred to as a top-heavy bureaucracy befitting very large North American universities with billions of American dollars at its disposal. This becomes an area of analysis when one considers two factors; the extreme smallness of the university.
I need to dwell on this a little longer. It was once observed in an opinion piece years ago that less than two percent of Guyana’s population attends UG. It is easy to come up with a specific figure in a country with less than 800,000 citizens.
When one examines the bureaucratic structure, it truly cries out for discussion against the backdrop of less than 5,000 students and less than 300 staff members. Yet many larger universities do not have that kind of leadership format we see at UG.
Space would not allow for a comprehensive description, but it includes a Vice Chancellor, three deputy Vice Chancellors, Registrar, four deputy Registrars, Vice Chancellor’s Cabinet, Vice Chancellor’s Chief of Staff, Director for Strategic Initiative, Director for Corporate Relations, among many other top posts.
As recent as two Sundays ago, there was an advertisement for “academic advisors,” with one union leader questioning if this new “addition” has been approved by the Finance and General Purpose Committee.
This week there were more advertisements; one for a Supplies and Logistics Officer and a Business Development Officer. The advertisement describes the Business Development Officer’s role as one that will assist the university with partnership with commercial entities. So doesn’t UG have a Director of Corporate Relations? And what do the three deputy Vice Chancellors do?
On top of this central body is the fact that each faculty has its own management stratum, and UG now has an additional faculty that goes under the name School of Entrepreneurship. That new arrangement will carry its own academic staff and bureaucratic leadership too. I honestly believe this bureaucracy, one year after it came into being, needs societal assessment.
The second factor to consider after the small number of staff and students is the source of funding. Unless we are told the contrary, it would appear that the new leadership at UG has continued with the tradition of relying on the state to fund the university. The state has acceded to the request of the university in the 2016 budget and has increased its allocation.
I would hope this reliance on and “patronage” from the state becomes a thing of the past. Study after study produced by UG over the past thirty years has recommended that the university cannot go on living off state allocations.
The inevitable advice is that UG must seek to get resources from outside of its traditional source, that is, the Treasury. It would be useful if the university can produce a document for both the government and the taxpayers, meaning the citizens, (it is their money the state spends) to show if resources of a meaningful nature have come UG’s way in the past year.
I want to complete this column without cynicism or pungent criticism, but some pitfalls the past year at UG stare us in the face and, when we look at the line faults and fault lines, our memory goes back to our modern founding fathers – Jagan and Burnham.
Both men saw the future of Guyana in agriculture, science and technology. Burnham’s record is larger than Dr. Cheddi Jagan, because Burnham was in power longer. Burnham stands out for adding two relevant faculties at UG – Agriculture and Health Sciences. If he was alive, he probably would have added more relevant ones.
I seriously doubt that as president, Burnham and Jagan would have approved UG renting a place for six million monthly to house a school of business.
I conclude with two observations. I refer readers to a letter carried in the June 18 edition of this newspaper by a student who identified himself, captioned, “Something is deadly wrong with the services and operations at UG.” It does not make for optimistic reading. Secondly, I have been informed that serious grumblings by the staff may soon result in industrial action.
The question must be asked; have things changed for the better one year after new leadership at UG?

---

---