I write in response to an article published on Saturday May 7, in the Express newspapers. The title of the article was “Staff not sure when new principal will take over.”
I have always had a keen interest in the operations of the UWI, in particular to the St Augustine campus. It stems from much more than being my alma mater, but more importantly because of the role that this institution has played in the lives of many people in our country and region.
From an economic perspective UWI has established a sterling reputation in having fostered a student population some of whom have gone on to become our nation and regional leaders of Government, State and business and industry. It has been an extraordinary vehicle for building our Caribbean society for well over 65 years.
It is important that I confess that my interest has also been perked because of the fact that the Government of T&T pays 96 per cent of the operating costs of the regional body, with the other four per cent being derived through contributions from the other 16 Caribbean island states.
In essence, what happens at UWI should be relevant to all the citizens of T&T, as we as taxpayers play pivotal roles in assuring that this contribution is made.
With reference to the article of May 7, I am quite surprised that there was no mention as to the process that is involved for the selection and subsequent appointment of a campus principal. This is the person who sits at the helm and influences heavily, the decisions and direction that his or her campus must take.
With this being said many of you who may be acquainted with this process, would appreciate that on this occasion, with the selection and appointment of Professor Brian Copeland, there was clear evidence that demonstrated like never before, a cloistered approach to this selection.
Usually, as with the case of appointments for the predecessors, like Bhoe Tewarie, Max Richard and all the others, the vacant posts was duly advertised and various candidates were evaluated and considered. In this situation there was a distinct deviation from this convention and practice, and even within the UWI fraternity no one seemed to know who were the candidates being considered and why wasn’t the job advertised.
For an institution where transparency and fairness must be paramount to the tenets under which they operate, this recent approach is not acceptable to say the least. My question is why now, have they broken from the traditional approach, and what other policies and practices are being altered and revised without a transparent process.
Coincidentally or not, the university has presented a revised approach in executing some of its duties since the installation of its new Vice Chancellor, Sir Hilary Beckles. Of course, it is expected that with new leadership, there will be new initiatives and new perspectives. But what is very much a surprise, in particular to the appointment of a principal, the current process applied was in clear contravention to the basic requisites that must be upheld in filling any vacancy, more so the most significant post in the University.
While I concede that Professor Copeland may be the best person for the job, the element of doubt remains, not being aware of his competitors who vied for consideration for this esteemed position. It opens itself to scrutiny and speculation and further, may seem to be forcing our public (taxpayers) to accept a less than equitable approach to something that we contribute significantly to.
I believe that it is critical that this institution maintains the transparency that is required and necessary if it is to build on its exemplary reputation. What has been established for over six decades should not be compromised by the leadership style or disposition of one individual.
It is now public knowledge that a “transformation team” headed by Dr Hamid Ghany has been asked to develop a document that would guide UWI into the future. I was fortunate to have witnessed the live stream of the recently concluded University Campus Council Meeting that took place at St Augustine one week ago, at which time the proposal was submitted to the Council.
Strangely enough, I recall reading a press release from Sir Beckles in which he was detailed in stating what he expects as the modus operandi for UWI going forward. Clearly articulated in his advisory was that he is advocating the removal of the barriers that partitioned the various campuses to maintain a complexion of autonomy.
This approach in itself may have been intentional, to have in some way, influence over the deliberations and considerations of the transformation team which was commissioned by him to undertake this exercise.
I admit, he is indeed a very bright man, but he must remember that he is talking to an informed public and it is not usual for us to swallow things, hook, bait and sinker.
As we all know, very few secrets are kept in T&T, and it is alleged that some of the recommendations being made by the transformation team suggests that each of the respective campuses, Cavehill, Mona, St Augustine, will be deprived of the autonomy they currently have and all decisions that will determine the direction of each campus, must now be approved by the University Council.
This in my humble view, if it is adopted, will unquestionably take the respective campuses, back 10 years.
This is a daunting revelation to the St Augustine campus, which has grown by leaps and bounds, now having well over 4,000 graduands each year. More specifically the specificity of the decision-making process, unique to each of the campuses, will be removed completely.
There is no easy way to say this, but our taxpayer’s contribution, proportionate to 96 per cent of the University’s costs will now be decided upon by a regional body, headed by Sir Hilary Beckles.
If his recent approach to conducting the university’s business has been void of transparency, process and validation, then as a caring citizenry we must be guarded and inquisitive about matters pertaining to that institution.
Nigel Dillon,
Former admin assistant, UWI,
Tunapuna