How the Council Failed USP
Since May of 2019, there has been a lot of negative publicity regarding the University of the South Pacific ( USP).
What role has the USP Council played in this and how could this have been avoided?
It is important to note that this University has gone through a lot in the past but had never received such backlash from within.
When Professor Rajesh Chandra took over as the Vice-Chancellor in 2008, USP had $17million debt. It was because of the mismanagement of past office holders. The situation was so bad that almost every donor agency had refused to fund the regional University.
It took Professor Chandra one year to turn the $17m debt around. In his first year, USP broke even. From the second year, USP started making money.
He assembled a team. We will highlight more on them in the coming weeks.
Professor Chandra aided by a very capable team not only got Australia and New Zealand to resume their grants to the USP, Australia increased their allocation substantially over the ten years that Professor Chandra held the top job.
There were issues at the USP, but Professor Chandra had not engaged in ugly open spats with academics. Jobs were lost but people were given ample notice of the restructure. And, most importantly, Professor Chandra was very upfront about his plans with USP staff and students.
So, what happened now?
Today, USP’s debt is nowhere near the debt that Professor Chandra inherited and worked hard to clear. So why did the USP Council not speak out to clear his name when both the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption and an independent audit had done so?
Issues and approach:
USP Council’s reputation seems to have been compromised since May 2019. This is because the Council, while instituting independent investigation on the allegations of fraud and mismanagement by Professor Pal Ahluwalia on the previous VC, seemingly failed as the ultimate Governing Body to consider and act independently and decisively in the interest of every member.
■ Chair of the Council was perceived by certain members of the Council as the guilty party (without fair hearing). The Council made decisions influenced by certain member countries/individuals led by Samoa and backed by Australia and New Zealand nominated members on the Council.
■ New Zealand and Australia had believed the allegations by Prof Pal without waiting for the due process of the Executive Committee, which in such cases, as Council instituted Committee, should have investigated and made recommendation to the Council.
■ The Council, despite knowing that FICAC was investigating prevalence of any fraud and/or mismanagement by previous management decided to appoint an independent Consultant to investigate mismanagement.
■ A few members under Deputy Chair of the Council and Chair of Audit and Risk Committee were selected to do the Terms of Reference for the independent investigation. In that May 2019 Council meeting, which was chaired by Deputy Chair of the Council, the Council failed to ask Professor Pal some pertinent and important questions including whether the confidentiality of personal details of staff compromised by leakage of Professor Pal’s report? An enquiry into this was warranted and remains critical to the whole issue.
Council failures
After the completion of the BDO investigation, the Council failed to clear the names of the former VC and those staff who are not guilty of anything but implicated nonetheless.
These staff members were paid allowances based purely on the decision made by the former VC within his powers and delegated authority. These staff have neither defrauded the University nor mismanaged funds by paying themselves. They did the work for which they were paid for.
It is important to note that the quantum of allowances paid to them was decided by the former VC within his delegation of powers and not by staff.
The BDO investigation did not find any case of mismanagement by the former VCP or any staff who were paid with proper authority and approval. This could have been explained by the former VCP, had he been asked by the Council to explain the various allegations that had been made.
The Council seems to have ignored this fact by not making a public statement on the findings of both FICAC, that didn’t find any fraud and BDO, that didn’t find any mismanagement or unauthorised payments.
What BDO recommended was that many policies and procedures are vague and open to different interpretations and these were, in particular covering HR and Finance policies and procedures. BDO recommended that these should be relooked and revised or reformulated for clarity and transparency.
By not making a public statement, the Council created a confusion in the minds of public that the former VC and those staff who had nothing to do with any decisions were guilty. This caused high degree of reputational damage, hurt and humiliation to these staff and their families through social media, some media, and USP staff aligned to Professor Pal, using VC staff Forum to make hurtful remarks on these staff. And, Professor Pal remained silent and let these people vent their malicious criticism.
Had the Council shown some ma
turity and neutrality then the issue of governance at USP could have been resolved by now. It seems that majority of the Council members were not at all interested in the protection of staff integrity and organisation’s reputation, having had the benefit of the outcomes of the FICAC and BDO reports.
The Council as the highest authority of the University Governance failed to do justice to these staff. Until today, the Council neither in its Normal nor Special Meetings have cleared the matter despite appointing a Committee of the Council and later a Commission, whose prime responsibility is to review the financial and HR policies and procedures.
The Commission works through the Chair of the Committee, the Deputy Prime Minister of Samoa, who is no longer in Government of Samoa and hence on the Committee anymore.
This means that only A-G and PM of Cook Islands are members of the Committee.
But, when Professor Chandra and those staff implicated were cleared by FICAC, why was this not highlighted by the Council?
Tomorrow: Allegations against Prof Pal versus the BDO investigation.