Upcoming Council Meeting: How The Cards Are Being Dealt?
ASpecial Council Meeting of ( USP) the University of the South Pacific will be held next Tuesday. One would have expected that their first agenda would be how to get the $27m back from the Fijian Government.
But, that does not seem to be high priority for the Council right now. Instead, the first thing on the agenda is the appointment of the Deputy Chair of the Council ( wo nominees - current deputy and New Zealand member); New Zealand seems to be doing a lot to assert themselves in this regional university. Second agenda is to discuss the press conference held by the Pro-Vice Chancellor and Chair of Council Winston Thompson, and the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee Mahmood Khan. Then is a paper by Fiji on the independent investigation.
Some from within USP have already raised alarm that the agenda seems to have been drawn up in this manner to move a vote of no confidence against Mr Thompson.
Priorities within the USP seem rather warped right now.
USP’s biggest donor country has withheld its grant and will only resume once an independent investigation is done into serious allegations of governance issues.
But, instead of putting that as priority, are red herrings being used to divert the issue?
Why is the Council dragging its feet? Union reps questioned:
As stated yesterday, we bring to you parts of the email sent to Elizabeth Fong as the union representative by Council members:
The responses by members of the Association of the University of the South Pacific on how their voices are represented sheds an interesting light in the ongoing USP saga. A chain of emails to the Association of The University of the South Pacific Staff (AUSPS) which was sent to the Fiji Sun showed unhappy union members airing their concerns about the lack of consultations and the manner in which Vice Chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia has spoken about the university’s Research department.
In the same email, questions were raised whether the members were consulted before a letter was sent to Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama seeking a resumption of Government grant to the regional university.
Questioning Union position:
The email from various members stated: “Does the catch phrase “the tide has changed” mean that the executive does not need to consult us now and is a power unto itself? And if so, does it then mean that as a paying member, my “opinion” doesn’t count?
I don’t care what others do or say and who wants to justify their own personal individual choices – I DO care about the representation of my voice.. and the collective voice of this group. Are we saying and agreeing as a full union that this does that not matter? Are we saying that Exec can speak for us without consultation?
If our answer is yes to both of these questionsthenIwanttoknow:WhatisOUR“AUSPS” definitionof transparency and good governance? NOT the Exec committee’s interpretive opinion of what it means and how itshouldplayout.IwanttoknowhowAUSPS as a large body of individuals with their own opinions definesthese concepts. What is our collective understanding of what these mean to AUSPS.
“YES, you are right, the past Union bearers failed in various respects to deliver on what was expected.. but that DOES NOT give the new team the blanket authority to make decisions without consulting the union.
Surely that is at the heart of good governance and transparency?”
This was sent by Cresantia (Frances) Koya Vaka’uta, a senior lecturer in Education at the university.
“This troubles me deeply on many fronts. “First can we refrain from knee-jerk reactionary outbursts and emotional responses? Weneedtotakethetimetoreflectonthewide reaching implications that playing this media game will have on our institution. I recognize that emotions are high and that some are now beginning to venture into the very dangerous,deepanddirtywatersof personal vendetta. In my view, that needs to stop! And I expect and in fact demand that the union members who supposedly represent the diversity of views of the membership take a leadership role in ensuring that we all calm down before we do something that our institution will struggle to recover from!
“Second, I just want to remind everyone that the Research officeis made up of more than one man and regardless of people’s views about that one man, We MUST NOT lose sight of the fact that the RII portfolio covers a big team of workers who by this dirty political game that we are now happily playing, are being called out as incompetent.
I take great offence to this as I have a great regard for the team at the research office and the international office.They are a team comprised of professional and I&J staff. Are we calling them all out as incompetent? Are we saying that they are responsible for not meeting SMT and Council approved deliverables which we have already been told were unrealistic? For e.g the projection of the number of international students we had hoped to attract.
Still in line with this, are we breaching any communications policy guidelines by releasing such information in this press release?
Third, can someone please explain to an ignorant staff member such as myself what the guidelines are for the AUSPS team in speaking on our behalf? Was the draft of the last press release sent to AUSPS in draft format to comment on before it was released? I ask because I did not see any such email. The only email I saw was the one in which we were informed that it was being delivered to PMs office.In the response you just sent us, I am unsure if the esteemed group is simply informing us after the fact or if this has already been leaked or delivered? Or are we being consulted? The email informs us of the response but does not seek our endorsement. What is due process here? Are you asking for our endorsement or are you telling us that this is the press release?
“I get why some are happy we are responding but I feel that we are allowing ourselves to respond emotionally and there is tremendous risk in doing so.
“Personally, I have no idea how many others there are like me in this group, but I for one, am not going to lose sight of the fact that in choosing any side of any single person means that we ultimately lose sight of the institution and the region we are mandated to serve. Institutional thinking requires a calm headspace not an emotional outburst.
“The risk that we should be thinking about is the loss of credibility for the university that we already are facing not just in terms of funding, but also in terms of our regional and international standing. I am sorry if I offend anyone but this has to stop. We need to take control of the situation and restore some sense of professional ethics in all of this.
“I am deeply saddened at our obvious inability to do so. It calls into question, the leadership capacity that we have because if we don’t see the big picture, we are in much bigger trouble that we think.”
Questions that the Union representatives refuse to answer: Who are they working on behalf of ? Interestingly, there is a perception that those who are vigorously defending the current Vice Chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia may have a lot to lose if an independent investigation into 33 allegations are done. Does this mean that the Council has failed to do its duty to the University?