Rebranding questions not answered
University name change
“THERE is a misguided self-righteousness in the air.” These are the opening words of Lebogang Hashatse’s opinion piece in The Herald on September 1 (“Nelson Mandela name itself becomes university’s logo”).
When did asking questions and voicing real concerns become self-righteousness?
And when did people expressing their opposition to something become “rearing its disagreeable head”?
There is no argument with the idea of changing the university’s name to Nelson Mandela University.
It’s beyond dispute that the man was great and his name carries substantial weight.
The questions are not about the name change. Or even about the creative. Art is subjective. Processes are not. The issue that I and many others have is: why was this process not made public?
Why was no one local even afforded the opportunity to bid for the work and why was the vast amount of local talent simply overlooked in favour of a (white) Western Cape agency?
These questions deserve answers and, in fact, require answers, if the integrity of the university is to remain intact.
Hashatse’s piece is laced with pseudo-academic references to persons ranging from Mandela to Albert Einstein in an attempt to support his untenable position, but he fails to address any of the real concerns and issues regarding the rebranding.
Instead he seeks to confuse and muddy the waters further.
The real issue is that the university is under fire for the lack of transparency that it exhibited in the rebranding process and for the probable wasteful expenditure of funds.
Hashatse claims that a formal complaint was lodged and responded to by the university.
I can verify that I have written to university officials repeatedly, but must report that in every instance my questions have gone unanswered.
In the most recent correspondence with deputy vice-chancellor Dr Sibongile Muthwa, in which I had asked again for answers, I received a terse reply that, “In my formal role as a DVC, I have nothing more to offer to this conversation”.
Hashatse referred to the Alumni Association AGM in his piece.
He, regrettably, failed to answer any of the questions put to him during the meeting and has still not provided any answers to these questions. Instead he responded with several irregular and alarming statements.
He said, “Very few top students come to PE and NMU”, in effect stating that no alumni were capable of fulfilling the scope of the rebranding.
Equally alarming was his statement to the effect that the university had already done enough for the community on a year-on-year basis and therefore the university had no obligation to even consider opening the rebranding for local tender. In his opinion piece, he has entrenched this viewpoint by asserting, “Last year the university’s direct procurement spend in the Bay was R296-million”.
Mr Hashatse, with respect, Nelson Mandela Bay is your backyard!
Was there not an obligation to at least explore whether the capacity and skills to fulfill the brief were locally available before unilaterally awarding this substantial contract to a provider in the Western Cape?
Hashatse stated in his piece that the university had an obligation to “rethink how and on what it deploys its limited resources”. We agree!
He has, however, suggested that the challenge to the university’s decision to not even consider local providers has been solely mounted by disgruntled local players with an obvious financial interest.
This is not the case. I am no longer active in the advertising industry and have nothing to gain either way.
I do, however, have more than 25 years experience providing services in this industry to local, national and international clients.
As a person who knows the costs associated with advertising, design and marketing, I have no doubt that the R265 000 for “the agency name-change-related quotation” is excessive and in no way signifies any real intent by the university to contain costs.
How was this excessive expenditure permitted?
Any one of at least five highly talented, highly capable and award-winning local agencies could have fulfilled the brief for no more than R50 000.
If there is nothing to hide, why have the officials that I have contacted for answers not provided them?
I have posed 14 specific questions to the chancellor (Santie Botha), vice-chancellor (Derrick Swartz) and deputy vice-chancellor (Muthwa), and at the time of writing have not yet been provided with any proper answers or given access to the relevant documentation.
In his piece, Hashatse quotes Einstein, stressing the importance of taking time to plan ahead when undertaking important decisions.
Sadly, the officials involved in the rebranding exercise have failed to show this commitment to proper planning, in an instance in which they had more than 12 months to complete the project.
Even with the intervening Fees Must Fall disruption, there was more than enough time, with professional management, to execute the rebranding openly with accountability and transparency.
The management team failed to live up to the legacy of the standards of integrity, honesty and leadership set by the icon in whose name this exercise was undertaken.
So, where is the misguided self-righteousness really?
Jennifer Lindridge, Port Elizabeth