THE USP SAGA CONTINUES
SUSPENSION OF AHLUWALIA RAISES MANY QUESTIONS
The University of the South Pacific (USP) has recently suspended the Vice-Chancellor and President, Professor Pal Ahluwalia. The decision on this suspension has been based on an investigation that was undertaken by the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. However, the suspension of Professor Ahluwalia raises many questions about the integrity of corporate governance at USP. The USP is jointly owned by the governments of 12-member countries, which are represented in the University Council. Therefore, USP has a long-standing history of providing access and opportunity for students of all its member countries. USP has also played an active role in research and development, formation and review of public policy in the provision of quality education. Moreover, the university has a long history of providing flexible and online learning to students from remote regions who may not have attained tertiary education. Opinion Mahsood Shah
What is the suspension of the vice-chancellor based on?
I argue that the university’s Pro-Chancellor’s suspension of its vice-chancellor based on an audit finding undertaken by the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee – a standing committee of the University Council without any approval – is unethical.
This position is grounded on the notion that the appointment of the vice-chancellor is made by the University Council which represents the voices of all member countries. Yet, the suspension of the vice-chancellor was not opened to deliberation by the council members, many of who are yet to be consulted to date.
This is against the backdrop that the USP handbook on the appointments made by the council clause 4.1 (5) clearly outlines that a Vice Chancellor may be removed only by the resolution of the council.
In this case, the council was not consulted on the audit and subsequent suspension of the vice-chancellor.
Therefore, removal of the vice-chancellor is illegitimate, and does not represent the vote of the University Council. This show of a lack of integrity in corporate governance at USP raises several issues including: The overarching authority and legitimacy of the pro-chancellor in suspending the vice chancellor of the university without consulting the council;
The accountability of, authority and legitimacy of the Chair of Audit and Risk Committee (a standing committee of the council) to undertake an audit without the approval of the council;
The health and sustained professional relationship between the Pro-Chancellor and members of the University Council; and
An undermining of the role of the council and the vice-chancellor.
It is worth noting however, that Professor Ahluwalia was on track to implement reforms at USP – reforms that are timely and needed to bring USP up to speed with international developments and innovation in higher education. USP’s research output, for instance, is much lower than comparable institutions of same age and size in the Asia Pacific region. Also, although USP is the first higher education institution in the South Pacific, there is significant gender inequity and a lack of succession management of early-career academics into associate professor and professor roles.
It should also be recalled that I have alluded in the past to the need for major reforms in higher education in Fiji.
A lack of national reviews of higher education in Fiji places significant risks on its reputation, credibility, and standards relative to those in other developing countries.
Challenges
The governance and leadership challenges at USP threaten its sustainability. The current culture can be described as “toxic” and the University Council needs to intervene in a timely manner.
It is however unfortunate that membership of the council includes the current Minister of Education, Heritage and Arts who should have intervened on the challenges with an independent lens.
Universities are autonomous institutions that are often led by some of the most educated and prominent scholars.
The governance of institutions such as universities should therefore be a role model to other public and private sector institutions. As academic peers, we engage in dialogue and enquiry, which bring new knowledge to life.
We also provide expertise in improving teaching, research and engagement in a collegial manner.
This incident at USP questions academic freedom and the culture desired to be developed and sustained with pride.
It is in this light that the University Council, students and staff need to support the vice-chancellor to achieve his strategic vision of USP. Simply appointing a new vice-chancellor is not the solution to USP’s current challenges. Rather, an important part of the solution requires the Council to ensure that decisions by the pro-chancellor are legitimate and represent the voices of all its members.
Doing so will also imply that people involved in undertaking “secret investigations” need to be found and removed from their roles. USP cannot reform its core business of research, quality education and engagement without resolving governance and management.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the intervention of the council in the day-to-day operational matters of the university would not help USP to achieve its strategic vision. This is important since USP provides a learning experience for the other two universities in Fiji that have not retained vicechancellors comparatively longer.
On this note, I conclude by calling on the stakeholders including the Minister of Education, Heritage and Arts to look deeper into the governance issues of universities towards building strong sense of academic culture in Fiji.
The role of Fiji Higher Education Commission into this matter is also important given its role in regulating higher education institutions as outlined in the Higher Education Act 2008.