Last week, officials from the Ministry of Education sat down with members of the press to outline the second version of the University of Malta Bill. One notable difference is that the proposal to introduce a governing body empowered to take key strategic decisions, with members appointed by the Prime Minister, has been scrapped.
The creation of an intermediary group called an electoral college is being proposed. In it, the number of academic staff, admin and technical staff and student representatives will make up 10 representatives each. Four would come from the University's Council, and the remaining six would be elected among the respective groups themselves. Seven members would be those appointed to the Council by the Prime Minister.
The University's Council, the highest body within the institution, will therefore have the number of members directly appointed by the Prime Minister cut in half, from 14 to seven members.
In addition, a strategic and financial committee would be set up to help reduce the council's workload.
The way in which Deans are elected would also be subject to change under the proposed bill. The process has been widened to include administrative staff and students together with the academic faculty. This needs to be thought further.
Votes for the elections of Deans would be weighted differently, with academic staff accounting for 70 per cent of the final result, admin and technical staff votes amount to 20 per cent of the final vote, while student votes amount to 10 per cent
While the original consultation document proposed the introduction of term limits these have also been withdrawn in this draft Bill.
In addition, an appeals system has been proposed for aggrieved students and potential students, as well as staff. If a student feels they were unfairly disqualified for a programme, or a staff member feels they were unfairly passed on for a promotion, a system would be set up providing a formal structure with the right to appeal that decision.
This latest draft bill will now be subject to feedback by key stakeholders and following this, will be subject to the parliamentary process.
What were your initial thoughts when you read the contents of this new version?
It is clear to many people that this document is very significantly changed from the initial proposals tabled in the initial consultation document. We know that we had objected to this governing board and we did indeed see the removal of this governing board.
We were surprised that we came across this document just about a couple of hours before the media did. We were expecting the lead up to the document in its current state would involve more communication with us as a union representing university academic staff. Nowhere between the meeting we had with Education Minister Evarist Bartolo, which the media were present for, and this point did we have contact by the drafters of this bill or the ministry.
Had you been consulted before version 2.0 came out, what would you have said?
For starters I would have thought that this law is actually an opportunity. I would have said that there is no reason for creating a new law when you are not trying to make something significantly different. Why create a bill if you are not actually trying to improve things? Some of the ideas were interesting and innovative, but were dropped between that draft and this. At the same time the same lack of infrastructural considerations for the development of research which was present in the last document are still present here.
In a sense, this whole process for a University Act is much ado about nothing because what does it do really? Looking at the way it is structured, the fundamental changes are not present. The structures of the university have remained essentially the same. Why have this law at all at this point? Sure there is broader participation of students and non-academic staff in the elections of certain Principal Officers and two additional administrative committees answerable to Council have been created. Were such committees deemed necessary there was nothing stopping the rector from appointing an advisory committee in the first place.
I also note that the President of University Council in the proposed bill is appointed directly by the Prime-Minister. Under current law the office of the President of University Council is vested in the Pro-Chancellor who is appointed by the Chancellor of the University "after the Minister's approval". So we went from a President appointed after consulting the Minister to a President appointed directly by the Prime-Minister. While it remains to be seen what actual decision making power and influence this would entail in practice it is certainly an interesting symbolic message that is being transmitted.
What about the creation of the electoral college?
The electoral college is created with the sole function of electing a rector. It is composed of members of council and other members who are elected to elect. To me adding this additional layer of elections is unnecessary and actually distances individual academics from having a voice in the election of the rector.
The same principles apply, they've changed the proportions of voters and they have instead created an intermediary structure called an electoral college. That said, the proportion of the academic vote for the appointment of the rector has remained more or less the same as in the current education act in the end. I do not see anything that is fundamentally different now in terms of individual academic involvement in the election of the Rector.
It still doesn't answer the question on why we are bothering to create this electoral college. I fail to see the rationale. We had proposed that the election is open to all academic staff. Why can't everybody simply vote, why do you need an intermediary structure? Why go for an indirect democracy? Just as much as students are able to elect representatives on council from student-wide elections, there is no reason why all academics, not just ones on council and the ones 'elected to elect' should not be able to elect the university's rector. One could still retain the element of proportionality without the electoral college.
The actual weight of the academic vote for the election of Deans, on the other hand, has been significantly reduced. In effect this Bill dilutes the voting power of academics for the elections of Deans while potentially broadening the potential field of candidates for the post.
Do you think there will be a third draft version after meeting with the Minister to provide feedback?
We expect there to be. We are going into the consultation precisely because we expect that our feedback matters. If the feedback doesn't matter what is the point of holding the session? We would have preferred if we had a similar opportunity before this, to build a dialogue with the legislators drafting the bill.
On the publication of the initial consultation document UMASA had conducted a detailed internal consultation procedure and drafted a Position Paper. We had no further feedback from the Ministry since then and we are surprised that our proposals are not reflected in the current legislation - with the exception of the removal of the Governing Board. We were under the impression that we would be given the opportunity to discuss with the legislators during the drafting process and not actually be handed a draft a week before having to discuss it.
I also note that the minister totally ignored our request that UMASA, together with all other legitimately constituted unions, be granted an observer status on University Council. This is indicative of the approach that has been adopted through this process.
from The Malta Independent https://ift.tt/2JwV55L
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment