university governance, autonomy and - university of … i was appointed the vice chancellor of the...

University Governance, Autonomy andAccountability: Directions for Change

Report of the Workshop

Organized by University of Colombo

and

Held at Sri Lanka Foundation InstituteColombo

on

03-04 September 2015

© Uniiversity of Colombo December 2015

ISSN 2465-6518

Page-setting: Rasika Chandrasekera

Cover Design: Aruna Jayasena

Published by

University of ColomboP.O. Box 149094, Cumarathunga Munidasa MawathaColombo 03.Sri LankaWeb Site: www.cmb.ac.lkTelephone: (94)-11 2 581835

Printed by

Smart Print Solutions Centre444/3B, Pitipana SouthHomagamaSri Lanka.

The following team facilitated the organization of the workshop andthe preparation of this report

University of Colombo Senate Sub-Committee

Dr. Godwin ConstantineProfessor Neloufer de MelDr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri

Professor Lakshman DissanayakeDr. Pavithra KailasapathyDr. Indika KarunathilakeProfessor Marie Perera

Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda (Convener)Professor Devaka Weerakoon

Workshop Secretariat

Crystal BainesChamathka Devasirie

Thakshala Tissera

Contents

Foreword i

Introduction 1

Autonomy, Accountability and Responsibility in University Governance:Key Themes and Issues 2

The Workshop 7

Recommendations 17

References 36

Annexures 37

Foreword

During a recent Senate meeting at the University of Colombo, Professor Lalitha Mendis, who was the competentauthority at the time, invited the attention of members to a booklet written by Senior Professor Jayadeva Uyangodaentitled University Governance in Sri Lanka: A Critique and Ideas for Reform. Professor Mendis pointed out that it washigh time for the university academic community to conduct a proper academic discussion about this theme, involvingall the universities as well as the Ministry of Higher Education and University Grants Commission. It was argued thatthis was because we all had experienced a significant decay in good governance and autonomy in the higher educationsector during the past decade.

The Senate of the University of Colombo unanimously endorsed Professor Mendis’ suggestion and appointeda subcommittee as a working group to organize a Workshop on Good Governance, Autonomy and Accountability andrecommend appropriate directions for change. I also had the privilege to serve as a member of the subcommitteebefore I was appointed the vice chancellor of the University of Colombo, and, naturally, Professor Uyangoda servedas the chairman of the committee. With my appointment as the vice chancellor, I invited the vice chancellors of everyuniversity in Sri Lanka that comes under the purview of the Ministry of Higher Education to submit participant nomineesto the workshop. All universities sent their nominations. More importantly, the UGC chair and its vice chair, as well thesecretary of the Ministry of Higher Education, together with other officials, took part in this deliberation with greatenthusiasm, and thus we conducted the workshop with great success on 3 and 4 September 2015 at the Sri LankaFoundation. Subsequently, consultations with the conveners of the working groups were held to develop this report.This report is, therefore, the outcome of the effort of many who believed that such an effort was necessary to improveSri Lankan universities in relation to good governance, autonomy, responsibility and accountability.

Most importantly, I was able to present the recommendations of this workshop to the Committee of ViceChancellors and Directors (CVCD) Conference held on 14 November 2015, which was attended by all vice chancellors,rectors, deputy vice chancellors, deans, registrars and bursars, as well as officers from the UGC and Ministry ofHigher Education. This gave us a great opportunity to open up a discussion among all fifteen universities on aligninguniversity governance, autonomy and accountability issues with the higher education trends in Sri Lanka. If we areexpected to move from the present university teaching context to the teaching and research university framework,such a discussion seems essential.

i

This report covers all aspects of governance, autonomy, accountability and responsibility issues at variouslevels in relation to what can be done at both university and national levels in a context of both upward and downwardaccountability of the authorities concerned. This report also provides a strong basis for the authorities concerned torecover and preserve lost traditions, while moving to a new stage of our higher education, aligned with global highereducation trends.

Professor Lakshman DissanayakeVice ChancellorUniversity of Colombo25 November, 2015

i i

University Governance, Autonomy and Accountability: Directions for Change

1. Introduction

Governance has been of major concern in Sri Lankan universities in recent years. In fact, there has been a‘crisis of governance,’ although this remained unacknowledged in public by university authorities.

There are two aspects that have characterized this crisis of governance. First, the universities have not beenexempt from the general decay of public sector institutions. Dimensions of this general crisis include: poor statefunding, low employee salaries, lack of infrastructure development, poor management, continuing bureaucratization,political control and the failure to renew the energies of these institutions as providers of vital services to society.

The second aspect is specific to the university sector. Key features of the crisis of governance within theuniversities are: increasing political control of university affairs, the politicization of university administration, the riskof universities being transformed into the status of government departments or statutory boards, continuing studentunrest, and the breakdown of the trust between university authorities and academic as well student communities.

The erosion of university autonomy, distortion of processes and practices of accountability, and neglect ofthe responsibility of universities to society are three major consequences of this crisis of governance, which has beenbuilding over several years.

The trade union action launched by the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) in 2011-2012highlighted many issues relating to university governance. Since the economic demands of FUTA took precedenceover other issues, the theme of governance reform that emerged during the trade union action did not receive adequateattention. However, the government decision of January 2015 to refrain from politically interfering with the appointmentof vice-chancellors (VC) highlighted the need to acknowledge that (a) there is indeed a crisis of governance in theuniversity system, and (b) addressing the crisis through reform is feasible.

It is against this context – marked by (a) the urgent acknowledgment of the necessity for university governancereform, and (b) the opening up of space for a fresh conversation among all stakeholders for reform – that the Universityof Colombo decided to hold a workshop on 3-4 September 2015 on the theme “University Governance, Autonomy andAccountability: Directions for Change.” The workshop, as the University of Colombo conceptualized it, intended to bereform oriented, in the sense of producing, through dialogue and analysis, a body of recommendations for action, asa basis for actively working towards, in partnership with all stakeholders, the implementation, as far as possible, of therecommendations.

1


2. Autonomy, Accountability and Responsibility inUniversity Governance: Key Themes and Issues

Although the topic of how universities are governed has not received much systematic attention in recenttimes, it has been a continuing concern since the early days of Sri Lanka’s university system. A number of universitycommissions have explored issues and aspects of university governance at varying levels of intensity: RiddleCommission Report (1929), Needham Commission Report (1959), Gunawardena Commission Report (1963),Jayasuriya Commission Report (1966), and Jayaratne Committee Report (1970). Sometimes, solutions implementedhave further aggravated the problem, leading to new crisis situations. Meanwhile, factors, such as changing politicalcontexts in which the interventionist role of the state restricted social space for autonomy and dissent, intensifiedsocial and political conflicts making universities vulnerable to practices and consequences of civil war and violence.The erosion of democratic values and practices in governance consequent to the de-democratization of society hasalso constituted the broad backdrop against which the crisis of university governance should be located.

2.1 Governance as a Concept

‘Governance’ is a relatively new concept that was first introduced to policy discourse in the mid-1980s, in thecontext of macro-economic and administrative reforms instituted at a global level. The UN, international economicinstitutions and donor communities were the first to use the term ‘governance’ and then popularize it throughout theworld. In its conceptual evolution through the past three decades, the concept of governance has also become part ofour common sense, along with three other related concepts: good governance, transparency and accountability.

The concept of governance has also acquired two meanings, a narrow one and a wider one. In its narrowmeaning, governance refers to processes, practices and mechanisms of decision making and implementation in allinstitutions – state, non-state, semi-state, corporate, business, etc. The idea of governance reform in this narrowconceptualization envisages the goal of achieving ‘good governance’ through transparency, accountability andparticipation.

In its second and wider meaning, governance entails processes of decision making and implementation, aswell as issues relating to the larger political, policy and normative environment within which institutions function. Thisis a specifically South Asian meaning of governance, which can be found in an alternative body of social scienceliterature on governance. In this broad conceptualization, governance refers to political, constitutional, value andnormative dimensions of the polity within which the political order interacts with its citizens.

2


2.2 University Governance

In the study of public institutions, the concept of governance has been used to reflect both meanings asidentified above. Thus, the theme of university governance can be studied at two levels.

First: The dimension of governance embedded in individual institutions, or ‘internal governance.’ In thecase of universities, internal governance concerns the internal management and administration of theuniversities. It entails decision making and implementation processes, practices and mechanisms withinthe universities that affect all university communities – academics, students, administrators and othernon-academic staff.

Second: University-government relations, with government authorities being the UGC, MoHE, Treasury,Parliament, cabinet and office of the president. This dimension is called ‘external governance.’ In thisdomain of governance, universities, individually as well as a totality of institutions (or ‘the universitysystem’) interact with external agencies that are part of the state/government. Universities have noexistence independent of these external institutions. Therefore, the degree of independence anddependence is the most crucial issue that defines all debate on university autonomy and accountability.

It is important to distinguish between university governance and university administration. Governance ismore than decision making and implementation of regulations within universities, or between universities andgovernment authorities. It also concerns the social, cultural, institutional and professional contexts within which decisionsare made and implemented, as well as goals and value frameworks that guide broad practices of making, unmaking,implementing and not implementing decisions.

Thus, university governance needs to be conceptualized as also inclusive of the overall normative and valueframework within which both internal and external governance of universities as public institutions takes place. Thenormative framework becomes particularly significant to universities because they are spaces for the production anddissemination of knowledge through research, teaching and publication.

Autonomy, freedom, independence, tolerance and the right to dissent are the key components of such anormative framework. These are quintessentially liberal values. This to a great extent explains why universities areconsidered as institutions of ‘liberal education.’

The fundamental problem in relation to university governance revolves around the reconciling of two demands:(a) university autonomy valued by academics, and (b) public accountability demanded by the government. Publicaccountability here has two levels of meaning: (a) accountability to the government, since the universities are part ofstate institutions, mandated and funded by the state, and (b) accountability to society, since all universities, whetherpublic or private, are maintained and supported by society, while responding to social needs and demands.

2.3 University Autonomy

The contemporary idea of university autonomy is part of the European legacy of liberal democracy, althoughthe concept’s history goes back to the classical and medieval ages. Our conceptual understanding of universityautonomy comes from two main sources.

The first is the European liberal tradition that has highlighted the principles of freedom of thought,conscience and expression as well as the right to association and dissent.

3


The second is the body of international conventions that evolved during the second half of the 20th

century in response to the gross denial and violation of academic freedom in all its dimensions in thecontext of authoritarian/totalitarian/undemocratic governments. In this context, the idea of universityautonomy has been part of the struggle for democracy and human rights.

In Sri Lanka’s discussions on university autonomy, there have been three approaches:

The first, advanced primarily by university academics, argues for greater autonomy for the university,with little interference from politicians and government officials. It mandates that even the ‘little interference’be within a well-defined legal framework that upholds the principal of university autonomy.

The second approach, which is usually associated with politicians and officials, is that autonomy mayexist, but universities, as public institutions funded by the government, should be strictly subject to aregime of accountability to the government. This regime of accountability covers a wide area that includes:(a) financial governance, (b) administration, (c) cadre and personnel, (d) student intake, and (e) academiccourses.

In the third approach, the goal of university autonomy as an ideal is acknowledged. However, there isskepticism about the capacity of the universities to defend a commitment to autonomy. It also sees a riskin the idea of more autonomy than what the universities now enjoy, because more autonomy would runtwo risks. These are that: (a) without government control and supervision, universities can becomeungovernable, and (b) it will give an opportunity to the government to shed its commitments to publicuniversities, particularly in the context of privatizing higher education.

2.4 Current Context

The Sri Lanka government policy of promoting private sector participation in higher education and theemergence of private universities has added a new dimension to the question of university autonomy. The privateuniversities are cut off from the traditions and cultures of public universities where the issues relating to autonomyhave been historically raised. Issues of university autonomy and governance, as conceptualized in relation to publicuniversities, do not seem to have reached as yet the management, faculty and students of these private universities.

With regard to the public universities of Sri Lanka today, the need for reviewing the existing practices ofgovernance has acquired a special significance due to a number of reasons:

Politicization of university administration in recent years and resultant institutional decay, unrest,demoralization and the emergence of a culture of indifference to consultative and democratic frameworksof governance.

Necessity for a fresh review of the mission and role of universities and higher education in the context ofsocioeconomic changes and new directions of public policy under globalization.

New agendas, practices and priorities being introduced to universities by external agencies, raising thepossibility of narrowing the goals of higher education to labour market needs.

The necessity to review the Universities Act of 1978 to update the legal regime that governs Sri Lanka’shigher education.

4


2.5 Mission and Role of Public Universities

An in-depth discussion on university governance in Sri Lanka calls for fresh reflections on the nature andfunction of our public universities. Factors contributing to the need for a reappraisal are:

The entry of private and global capital under conditions of economic globalization into the higher educationsector.

The pressure on universities to respond to the changing dynamics of local and global economies, as wellas employment markets.

The pressure for a new emphasis on technical- and skill-oriented university education.

The growing mismatch between the increased demand for higher education and the opportunities forhigher education in the public university system.

The government policy of inviting private capital into the field of higher education at the university level hasalso reframed the public debate on higher education. Critics have highlighted the social goals of education in a societywith deep social, economic, and ethnic and gender inequalities. The anxiety that state-supported higher education willlose its priority as a public good, thereby leading to the reinstitutionalization of inequalities in the access to qualityeducation, is often expressed in the form of student protest against what has been termed the ‘privatization of highereducation.’ A related issue, no less significant in social terms, is the apprehension that the social transformative roleof higher education might be blunted by weak public sector university education, which is currently viewed by low-income social groups as a mechanism for upward social mobility.

The concept of ‘knowledge’ is also being instrumentally redefined throughout the world to fit a new labourmarket framework. The existing models of management and administration of universities are being challenged bythese new norms and practices derived from profit-making business models and new public management cultures.Even the relevance of certain disciplines, as part of university education, particularly in the humanities and socialsciences, is being questioned from the point of view of such ‘market rationality.’

Among issues that have emerged in this context that call for deeper reflection are:

What is the role and mission of a public university in Sri Lanka today? How can public universitiesrespond to new demands and pressures arising from global economic changes and their manifestationsat local policy levels? How can they respond to new pressures for change in the goals, character andcontent of university education?

What is the role and mission of the academic community? What kind of knowledge are they supposed toproduce and disseminate through teaching, research and publication? Does or does not the increasingemphasis on knowledge for producing knowledge-workers erode and undermine the very idea of theuniversity?

Can the quality and standards of our public universities be upgraded by keeping the universities primarilyoriented for undergraduate training, with only marginal emphasis on postgraduate research and training,as is currently the case?

5


If the Sri Lankan public universities were to be centres of excellence by being competitive, modern andattractive to foreign students as well, should they not need greater investment of capital for comprehensiverebuilding, against a backdrop of decades of neglect in relation to investment, innovation and reform?

6


3. The Workshop

The workshop was held on 3-4 September 2015 at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, Colombo, under thetitle “University Governance, Autonomy and Accountability: Issues and Directions for Change.” Focussing on thecurrent status and challenges to university governance and reform, the workshop had the following objectives:

To bring together university academics and administrators, representatives of the Ministry of HigherEducation (MoHE) as well as the UGC to initiate a dialogue on current issues of university governance.

To identify areas of reform in relation to the Universities Act, regulations, norms and practices of universitygovernance.

To learn from key stakeholders the best practices to strengthen democratic and accountable governanceat all levels of the university system.

To propose recommendations to the government and universities that would strengthen and sustaintransparent, democratic and accountable governance.

The organizers were conscious of the crucial need to bring together members of the academic communitywith other key stakeholders: representatives of the Ministry of Higher Education, University Grants Commission (UGC)and university administrators. The organizers were of the view that bringing all stakeholders together to analyze thepresent status of governance, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and make recommendations would lead tobetter chances of reform and implementation of the recommendations.

A first highlight of the workshop was the keynote address by Professor Sasanka Perera, dean of the Facultyof Social Sciences, South Asian University, New Delhi, India, on “Towards the Dismantling of Institutionalized Malpractice:University Autonomy and Governance.”

A second highlight was a roundtable discussion with the participation of Secretary to the Ministry of HigherEducation Mr. P. Ranepura, Chair of the University Grants Commission Professor Mohan de Silva, and Dr. DeepikaUdagama, head of the Department of Law, University of Peradeniya. Prof. P.M.S. Gunaratne, vice-chair of the UGC,joined the afternoon session of the discussion that followed the roundtable.

7


The roundtable discussion provided a rare opportunity for high-level university administrators and membersof the academic community to exchange views directly in an open forum on issues relating to autonomy, governanceand responsibility in the universities.

3.1 Workshop Themes and Structure

The workshop was structured around the following seven themes:

Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability Accountability and responsibility in university-government (MoHE, UGC, Parliament and other

government agencies) relations Accountability and responsibility in governance among university administrators and academics Appointment processes of VCs and members of university councils Grievance mechanisms at all levels Rewards, incentives and best practices within the university system Context-specific issues relating to university governance in recently established universities

Seven thematic working groups met to discuss the respective topics. A discussion paper, prepared by theconvenor of each group, was used as a tool in the discussion. The recommendations of each group, assisted by arapporteur, are summarized in Section 4 of this report.

Below are the discussion papers developed by the convenors of each working group.

3.2 Working Groups

Theme 1: Academic Freedom, Autonomy and Accountability

This theme sought to explore the links between academic freedom, autonomy and accountability, in order toseek some measure of conceptual clarity so that ideas for policy reform can be better grounded.

Academic freedom, university autonomy and accountability are integrated components within a discussionon the norms and values of academics and universities. Autonomy is seen as the institutional form of academicfreedom and a necessary precondition to guarantee the proper fulfillment of the functions entrusted to higher-educationteaching personnel and institutions (UNESCO recommendation concerning the status of higher-education teachingpersonnel, 1997). However, within the Sri Lankan context, the themes of university autonomy, academic freedom andaccountability have not yet received the degree of attention they deserve.

The concept of university autonomy also connects with the critical function that is an integral part of the lifeand mission of universities. In that sense, should universities critique power, in the way that media, for example, isexpected to do? Although this idea is endorsed in the liberal tradition, many universities do not see this as part of theirwider function in society. Authoritarian and illiberal states deny such a role for universities. In order for universities toserve a critical function, the state too must be open and democratic enough to accept the idea that an agency it fundscould be its greatest critic. It does not appear that the Sri Lankan state has reached this level of maturity, but is it a goal

8


that can be worked towards? ‘Critical thinking’ within disciplines is, however, something that all universities andprobably states would subscribe to.

We need to revisit the question as to why autonomy is required. Why should academics be allowed to workwithout any sort of external pressure? Why should universities be autonomous? The need for academic freedom andautonomy of universities is historically justified by the idea that universities should be free of external pressure to meetthe broader objectives of education and higher education – that is the full development of the human personality toparticipate effectively in the construction of a free, peaceful, environmentally friendly and egalitarian society withequal development of all nations (Lima Declaration, 1988). This is a functional argument, as opposed to one thatclaims to be self-evident, and could therefore be probably justified more easily.

The idea of accountability should be taken seriously in conjunction with autonomy, especially in publiclyfunded universities. Academic freedom and autonomy signify freedom, and in mature societies freedom always entailsresponsibility, which is close to the concept of accountability. Perhaps the way to explore and balance academicfreedom/autonomy and accountability is through the notion of role/mission. In other words we need to ask the question:“What is the role and mission of the university today?” An associated question concerns whether private and publicuniversities have different roles.

One way in which to hold in balance the twin requirements for academic freedom/autonomy and accountabilitycould be to agree with stakeholders on deliverables – in other words, what should academics deliver in return forenjoying freedom and funding, for both emoluments and research. Should deliverables be measured by quantifiableoutput at the expense of quality and social impact? These need not be defined in a narrow way, but must be measurableat least qualitatively.

The following are some issues and questions that emerged in relation to the concept of university autonomy duringthe workshop:

i. The concept of university ‘autonomy’ requires updating to reflect current realities and challenges. Autonomydoes not mean the exclusion of accountability and responsibility. Autonomy with accountability requires alegal framework as well as a democratic culture of governance among all stakeholders.

ii. The objectives of university autonomy need to be clarified. Demands by academics for university autonomyshould not be viewed merely as autonomy for autonomy’s sake. Autonomy, with accountability andresponsibility, is essential for the universities to carry out their mandate of producing and disseminatingknowledge without political, governmental, administrative and bureaucratic interference and obstacles.

iii. How can the tyranny and malgovernance within universities even under autonomy be prevented? Thisrequires strong checks and balances as well as a culture of questioning, and critique of and dissent withauthority.

iv. What are the limits of university autonomy? Should there be limits that need to be laid down within aframework of democratic checks and balances, without impinging on the mission of universities, freedomof expression and academic freedom. The goals and objectives of any such limits should be discussedwith the academic community and be clear and subjected to periodic review.

9


Theme 2: Accountability and Responsibility in University-Government Relations (UniversityAutonomy in Practice)

The autonomy of universities as public institutions to a great extent concerns the nature of the relationshipbetween the universities and the government, its political authorities and regulatory institutions. Accountability andresponsibility in university-government relations are factors that cannot be ignored, whatever the degree of autonomythat a university may possess. Autonomy is generally defined as the right of self-government. When speaking ofuniversity autonomy, we need to ask from whom or what this right of self-government is to be obtained. Where theuniversity system of Sri Lanka, funded by the state, is concerned, the answer would be obvious: autonomy fromgovernment control and interference.

However, it is also possible to argue that this autonomy could never be absolute. Whatever the degree ofautonomy, universities by virtue of state funding will still remain accountable to the Ministry of Higher Education, UGC,Parliament and the Ministry of Finance. Thus, securing university autonomy while being answerable to the governmentand its administrative agencies will continue to be a source of tension.

Where universities increasingly accept funds from the private sector or funding agencies for researchprogrammes, the research priorities may increasingly be dictated by the demands of those funding such research,again implying a reduction in university autonomy.

Thus, university autonomy is also affected by the fact that universities cannot be insulated from global trends,policies of funding sources, political priorities, and demands of the wider society in which they operate and to whichthey have to respond. However, universities should be left to decide the mechanisms and modalities through whichthey will respond. This may be held out as a practical view of university autonomy. Even then, problems arise. Forinstance, whatever the method of funding of a university system, would the freedom given to universities in pursuanceof autonomy to make judgments as to how resources made available should be allocated among faculties anddepartments lead to the crowding out of those faculties and departments that are of less importance in achieving thegoals of the major sources of funding? Would this type of autonomy lead to the gradual marginalization of those areasof study not perceived as being attractive for funding purposes?

Some of the key questions that emerged in workshop deliberations were:

i. What should be the role of the Ministry of Higher Education/University Affairs and the minister in relationto the universities? This should be within the framework laid down in the Universities Act. The ministershould refrain from exercising informal power to interfere with university governance, through actionsthat are outside the scope of the Act. What should be the role of the minister? What revisions are requiredto the current practice of selecting non-academic staff from the ‘minister’s list’?

ii. Should the UGC be reconceptualized, or replaced? What should be the function and authority of a regulatorybody such as the UGC?

iii. Should the composition of membership of the UGC be revised? If so, in what ways and for what reasons?

iv. What changes should be proposed in the current process of appointment of VCs?

v. The present adversarial dialogue between universities and the parliamentary Committee on PublicEnterprises (COPE) is not helpful. Therefore, does the role of Parliament in relation to universities needrethinking?

10


vi. New mechanisms and processes of government control, monitoring and supervision of universities needto be formulated, with adequate guarantees for autonomy, good governance, quality assurance andmutual responsibility. They should also ensure and promote better practices that can maintain a balancebetween autonomy, accountability and responsibility.

vii. Should the regulation of the process of recruitment and promotion of academics be revised?

viii. What does university autonomy mean in relation to student admissions?

ix. Which body should be vested with the authority to ensure quality in higher education – respectiveuniversities, an independent body, or the UGC?

x. What degree of autonomy should be given to universities in making decisions regarding self-generatedfunds? Can such funds be used, for instance, for direct recruitment? What kinds of checks and balancesshould be in place if such a mechanism is to be introduced? Should there be greater flexibility in theutilization of earned funds for research projects, teaching programmes and other initiatives by academics?

xi. How would autonomy and accountability operate in relation to research policy and curriculum design?

Theme 3: Autonomy, Accountability and Responsibility in Governance within Universities,and among Academics and Administrators

One dimension of the autonomy debate concerns its effect on accountability and responsibility on the part ofacademics as well as university/government authorities. Four arguments have emerged in relation to universityautonomy: (a) institutional autonomy should accompany responsibility on the part of academics, (b) autonomy, withoutaccountability and responsibility, can even lead to autocracy/tyranny in governance, (c) there should be a two-wayprocess of accountability – upwards and downwards, (d) it is the academics themselves who have contributed to theerosion of academic autonomy by informal practices adopted in securing positions and promotions through politicalfavours and unethical practices.

Thus, the concept of university autonomy refers to the freedom to take decisions by the institutions within theuniversity without the interference of any outside body in fulfilling their ‘domestic’ and ‘global’ responsibilities.

Domestic responsibility refers to the university’s obligation to uphold public policies (especially educationpolicy) as decided by the government authority that exercises the sovereignty of people and handles thepublic finances, for which the ultimate ownership lies in the hands of the people,

Global responsibility refers to the contribution to be made by the universities for the advancement ofknowledge of humankind.

If the universities are given autonomy in the four areas as identified in the Lisbon Declaration – academic,financial, organizational and staffing autonomy – the university must have proper internal governing structures andpractices in line with the principles of good governance to fulfill its domestic and global responsibilities.

11


At present, the university councils do not function to ensure university autonomy against political interference.The minister of Higher Education appoints the majority of members of the university council. The appointees havesome sort of political connection to the ruling party or the minister. This majority has a major say in the election of theVC and the appointment of the DVC, although there is an open advertisement for applications for these positions.Most of the council members appointed by the minister show little or no understanding of university autonomy oracademic freedom. Actually, within the purview of the current Universities Act, university councils have the authority tomanage the internal administration of the university, without following the directives of the political bodies. Thus, forthe university councils to act as a buffer between the universities and political authorities, the council members, alongwith the VCs, should be sensitive and committed to university autonomy.

Meanwhile, of late, the UGC has emerged as the apex body of centralized control of academic affairs,undermining the role of the university senate as the highest body deciding the degree programmes and teachingcourses within a given university. Consequently, the universities have to wait months to receive approval not only forthe establishment of new departments and new degree programmes, but also for the introduction of diplomaprogrammes. The practice of imposing centralized criteria on the decision making of university senates seems tohave enabled the higher authorities to camouflage their political projects, such as preparing the space for privateuniversities.

Similarly, the interference of the minister in university administration has strengthened the power of universitybureaucrats, who have established close contacts with political bosses.

Since the VC has the capacity to manipulate resources and new project allocation, a VC with political backingis unlikely to meet opposition from elected academic administrators, such as deans of the faculties and heads ofdepartments, especially when the VC acts to please the whims of his/her political bosses.

Issues that were deliberated and emerged in the workshop were:

i. How has autonomy as conceptualized in the present University Act impacted on the systems of governancewithin the universities, with VCs at the apex of administration? There are strong and weak points in thepresent system of governance, in terms of democratic, consultative and accountable governance.

ii. There are also strong and weak points in the present system of faculty deans and heads of departmentin terms of consultative, democratic and accountable governance. When VCs violate the norms ofconsultative decision making and downward accountability, those practices percolate downwards to thelevels of deans, directors and heads of department.

iii. There are many issues to be addressed to improve the governance mechanisms and practices in therelationship between academics and university administrators. Academics perceive administrators,particularly those involved in financial administration, as unhelpful and even as barriers to the smoothflow of funds to research, procurement of goods and equipment, and other project activities. Bettergovernance requires rethinking the financial administration in order to ensure cooperation betweenacademics and administrators.

iv. How do practices of upward and downward accountability exist, or not, at all levels? The VC’s accountabilityto the UGC and MoHE seems to override the accountability to the university community. The importanceof downward accountability in the context of excessive emphasis on upward accountability needs to berecognized by all stakeholders.

12


v. How should the issue of unethical practices among academics themselves in securing appointments,positions and promotions, etc., be addressed?

vi. What role can academic, non-academic and student unions play in ensuring accountable governance inthe universities? What role should they play in the institutions and processes of university governance?For example, would their representation in the bodies of governance be an option?

Theme 4: Appointment Processes of VCs and Council Members

The process of appointing VCs has become a major area of concern and contestation in university autonomyand governance, as is the appointment of members to the university councils. The most negatively politicized issue inthe entire university system is the appointment process of vice-chancellors. This has led to a severe weakening ofgovernance in the universities, leading to the erosion of university autonomy, opening up space for political interferencein university governance, contributing to fostering divisions and factionalism within the universities and, consequently,to a continuing atmosphere of demoralization among university communities.

The criteria for the appointment of council members in the Universities Act of 1978 are broad and leave roomfor abuse. According to the Act, members should be “persons who have rendered distinguished service in educational,professional, commercial, industrial, scientific or administrative spheres” (Section 44 (1) vii). There is no detailedspecification as to how the VC should be appointed either. Should there be a search committee, and if so what shouldbe its role? Meanwhile, in Sri Lanka only the council of the university is involved in the selection of the VC. There areexamples of other countries where academics (through bodies such as the senate) and students (through studentunions) also have a role in the selection of the VC.

Careful and dispassionate thought needs to be given to this theme, for an analysis of the current status aswell as for recommendations for reform. Any reform on this issue will require amendments to the Universities Act aswell as changing practices adopted within the universities.

Issues:

i. What are the strong and weak points in the existing processes and mechanisms in the appointment ofVCs and councils?

ii. Should the appointment process of the VCs be changed? How and in what ways?

iii. Should the universities themselves appoint VCs? Should the council be the appointing authority, asunder the University of Ceylon Act of 1942 and as envisaged by the draft University Act of 1971?

iv. If the universities are the appointing authority of the VCs, what new procedures can be adopted to ensurethe quality of appointees as well as transparency, good governance and depoliticization of the process?

v. If the universities become the appointing authority of the VCs, what ‘nominal’ or ‘formal’ roles would theUGC, MoHE and the president have?

vi. Should the idea of university councils be rethought? If so, why and how? Will the reintroduction of the‘university court’ with modifications be a good idea?

13


vii. If the existing system of university councils is continued, what issues need to be addressed anew?Should they be made more autonomous from the MoHE, UGC and VCs? Should the councils be morerepresentative, and, if so, why and how?

Theme 5: Grievance-Handling Mechanisms at all Levels

This theme sought to critically examine the existing mechanisms and practices of grievance redress withinuniversities at all levels and propose recommendations for better governance. There is widespread acknowledgementof the weakness of existing mechanisms and practice to redress the grievances of students, academics and non-academic staff. This has lead to demoralization and frustration among those who have grievances.

Grievances arise in university settings due to reasons that include the lack of professionalism and commitmentamong staff and the absence/loss of a sense of community among both academics and non-academics. Conflictamong students is another factor that has contributed to this situation. In addition, universities have lost their liveliness,space for dissent and diversity. This in turn may also be a cause of conflict.

Framed within the overall conception of the university as a space of autonomy and academic discourse, thehandling of grievances needs to strike a balance between two compulsions: to safeguard the institution’s ability toself-regulate, and to ensure that individuals and groups within the institution have access to mechanisms of redresswhen the need arises. This dual focus can perhaps be best achieved if the handling of grievances is looked at in termsof having robust institutional mechanisms for victims, but at the same time promoting an institutional culture in whichindividual rights and boundaries are respected and individuals act responsibly towards each other and to their institution– in essence, a culture in which grievances can be minimized, rather than addressed after the fact.

Grievances can also arise because of external pressure on the institution, particularly in contexts where localpolitics, ethno-religious situations and other forces impinge on the autonomy of the institution.

The issue of grievance within the university context can also be significantly complex, given the large numberof potentially unequal power relationships that can exist between different stakeholders.

In dealing with grievances, it is important to identify ‘grievance hotspots.’ Different grievances are likely to beencountered by different groups within the university due to, for example: ragging, sexual harassment, professionalharassment (non-approval of leave, denial of promotion, plagiarism of a colleague’s work, etc.), political and ideologicallymotivated harassment (interference by politicians in university administration, VC/staff appointments, majoritarianism,etc.), and personal conflicts. Similarly, existing mechanisms for handling grievances within and between differentstakeholder groups and possible ways of strengthening them, and introducing new mechanisms where necessary,should be examined.

Issues:

i. Why are the existing mechanisms for handling grievances within the universities inadequate?

ii. What should be the broad principles that govern grievance prevention as well as redress processes andmechanisms?

14


iii. Should mechanisms and processes for grievance redress in the universities be different from othergovernment institutions? Should the universities have an updated establishment code to facilitate bettergrievance redress?

iv. Are there lessons and practices to be learned from universities in other countries?

Theme 6: Rewards, Incentives and Best Practices within the University System

Our universities do not have an adequate system to recognize and reward academics, academic administratorsand researchers for the innovations and contributions made to scholarship, teaching, governance and university-community relations. The role of academics as public intellectuals is often seen as a deviation from academicresponsibilities. The promotion procedure and annual research awards, with all their shortcomings, are the onlyavailable mechanisms to reward innovation, excellence and scholarship. Sometimes, authorities consider promotionas a personal gift and favour, rather than an earned right.

Issues:

i. What are the strong points and shortcomings in the existing promotion scheme as a mechanism ofacknowledging and rewarding excellence, innovation and contributions in teaching, research, academicadministration, innovation, etc.?

ii. What models in other countries can be examined to design a system of rewards and incentives for SriLankan universities?

iii. What are the principles and suggestions for a better system of rewards and incentives, material as wellas non-material?

iv. It is necessary to think about good practices of incentives that promote the role of academics as publicintellectuals, acknowledge practices that are measurable as well as not measurable, and accommodatedifferent cognate fields and locational advantages/disadvantages. Then, how can good practices bedeveloped? Should there be common practices for all, or specific practices in different locational areas(natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, etc.)? Who should develop these practices, in terms oflocation and cognate activities? Should there be a matrix of good practices arising at different levels?

v. How can unethical practices by academic themselves – in securing appointments, positions, promotions,etc., by cultivating political and other favours, canvassing and bringing external pressure – be addressed?

vi. What steps can be taken to address the problem of the limited availability of opportunities for highereducation and research for the increasing number of junior faculty members?

vii. At present, Sri Lankan universities do not have a system to relieve university teachers from teaching andadministrative responsibilities to conduct research, engage in writing, etc., other than sabbatical or vacationleave. What options can be proposed?

viii. A better, and user-friendly, model to manage research grants within the university system is a must topromote good practices for excellence.

15


Theme 7: Issues of Governance Specific to Relatively New Universities in the Periphery

Universities in the provinces, for a variety of specific reasons, are beset with serious governance challengesat many levels. Aspects of the problem that are repeatedly highlighted include: local political interference, lack ofrecognition of institutional autonomy and freedom by university authorities, localized politicization, severe shortagesof academic and administrative staff, poor infrastructure facilities and severe shortages of human, material and otherresources.

The UGC considers all universities ‘national.’ However, in practice, there has emerged an informal structureof hierarchy between long-established universities and those that have been set up relatively recently and aregeographically located in the ‘periphery.’ They can be called ‘peripheral universities,’ although the notion of peripheralcan be seen as inappropriate. They suffer locational disadvantages due to the simple fact of being geographicallylocated in provinces far away from the capital, where the government, MoHE and UGC have their power centres. Thishas also led to weak linkages and communication between universities in the periphery and the ministry, UGC andindustry. Meanwhile, the universities in the Northern and Eastern provinces had to confront unique difficulties due thethree-decades-long civil war.

Most of the universities in the periphery do not possess traditions of university autonomy, due to specificfactors linked to their institutional evolution. Examples of such factors include: the recruitment of pubic servants asacademics with no strong background in the institutional cultures of universities, the elevation of relatively juniormembers of the academic staff due to staff shortage to key administrative positions with little experience with universitytraditions, and the absence of vibrant academic bodies such as faculty boards and senates. In some instances, theVCs have been subjected to direct pressure from local political and military authorities.

Issues:

i. There is a range of governance issues in universities established in the provinces. Are these differentfrom general issues of governance? What are the issues specific to each or several of universities in theregions, and how have they manifested themselves?

ii. Do issues of autonomy and accountability have a distinct and urgent relevance to the universities in theprovinces? If so, how and in what ways?

iii. Do the universities in the provinces require special attention or a scheme of measures to addressgovernance and other issues? If so, what would be the key elements of such a scheme?

iv. Would the appointment of a special UGC committee to study the problems faced by the universities in theprovinces be useful?

16


4. Recommendations

The following are recommendations to be implemented at different levels: national, national/UGC, universitysystem, individual university and institutional culture.

Theme 1: Academic Freedom, Autonomy and Accountability

Basic Principles

A depoliticized and politically neutral appointment process for key university positionsis an essential precondition for ensuring university autonomy and a healthy culturefor accountability.

Universities have a crucial role to play in safeguarding university autonomy whilebeing accountable and responsible in academic and governance spheres. Universitycouncils,senates and faculty boards should take appropriate measures tosafeguard autonomy through consultative measures.

The appointment of members to the UGC and university councils, and as VCs anddirectors, should be free from politicization and external interference. A depoliticizedand politically neutral appointment process for these key positions is an essentialprecondition for ensuring university autonomy and a healthy culture for accountability.

The University Grants Commission should ensure and respect the autonomy ofuniversities and protect universities from political interference.

The provision of better facilities, infrastructure, and funding for university teachingand research in keeping with the investment of 6% of GDP for education should beimplemented.

Recognition of the value and provision of incentives to encourage inter-university,inter-faculty and interdisciplinary collaboration in teaching, research and institutionbuilding.

17


Ensure the right to information and access to information including explanation forthe refusal to provide information on a particular case.

Theme 1: Recommendations

National Level

♦ Inclusion in the chapter on fundamental rights in the Constitution of an explicitstatement on the right to freedom of inquiry.

♦ Inclusion in the chapter on fundamental rights in the Constitution of an explicitstatement on the right to education.

National/UGC Level

♦ Establishment of universities as a separate category within the public sector.

♦ Establishment of university academics as a separate service within the public sector.

University System Level

♦ Inclusion of a statement/provision on academic freedom and university autonomy inthe Universities Act.

♦ Appropriate revision of the University Establishments Code.

Individual University Level

♦ Each university to have the right and freedom to be able to determine its own curriculaand study programmes, with responsibility to the broader society, and internal andexternal bodies to ensure quality and standards.

♦ Prioritize university postgraduate research degree programmes as an integralcomponent of university research and national development, and provide adequateresources for postgraduate research.

♦ Provide state support for full-time postgraduate research, including scholarships forpostgraduate students.

♦ Revise procedures to ensure the optimum utilization of all funds, including researchand generated funds, without bureaucratic obstacles. The management of all universityfunds to be made transparent and efficient.

18


Institutional Culture Level

♦ Universities to organize annual meetings to discuss, review and makerecommendations on matters relating to autonomy and academic freedom. Thepublication of an annual report, with the participation of all stakeholders, on ‘AcademicFreedom, Autonomy, Accountability and Governance’ should be explored.

♦ Consultative and transparent process in decision making at all levels to promote aculture of democratic decision making, and prevent authority from becoming atyranny that disregards accountability and responsibility.

♦ Deans to report decisions made at councils and standing committees to respectivefaculties.

♦ University administrators to refrain from imposing cultures of conformity andinterference with personal choice, such as those relating to dress code, etc.

19


Theme 2: Accountability and Responsibility in University-Government Relations

Basic Principles

♦ The objective of university-government relationships should be the flourishing ofuniversities with the function of government agencies being to enable universities toreach their full potential.

♦ The practices of accountability and responsibility of universities to the government tobe developed with the above objective in mind.

♦ The principles of university autonomy and academic freedom to be respected whileensuring fiscal accountability to the government, and maintaining high standards offinancial probity.


National Level

♦ Continuance of the parliamentary COPE procedure to ensure fiscal responsibilityand accountability of universities. However, the meetings of COPE with the universitiesshould be conducted in an enabling and supportive, rather than hostile, spirit, leavingroom for constructive criticism and engagement.

♦ Information regarding routine meetings with the Treasury and other governmentalagencies with regard to budgetary allocations be made accessible to the universitycommunity. Decision making at these meetings to be in a spirit of cooperation and forthe purposes of enabling universities in relation to their academic freedom, autonomyand fiscal accountability to the government.

National/UGC Level

♦ The UGC to be the body responsible for apportioning funds/projects to the universities.

♦ The UGC to be limited to its original statutory mandate. However, while adhering tothe original mandate, the UGC is to widen its scope to support postgraduate educationand research in universities.

♦ The UGC to promote research cultures in universities through developing moreeffective and transparent funding mechanisms at all levels, and increasing annualbudgets for research.

♦ The UGC should not be the entity authorized to ensure quality assurance in theuniversities or in the higher education sector in general. There should be an

20


independent body for quality assurance, members of which should not have a conflictof interest with other private higher educational institutions.

♦ There should not be micromanagement of universities by the UGC.

♦ The UGC to follow a consultative process in drafting circulars on academic matters.

♦ The UGC to provide at least a minimum/critical cadre to all universities/faculties/departments, regardless of the number of enrolled students. For this purpose, theUGC to have periodic and supportive consultations with the universities playing anenabling role.

♦ Student admissions: The UGC to revise guidelines for student admissions to ensuretransparency in selection to universities, and develop transparent criteria for allocatingstudents to a particular faculty/university as well as student transfers.

♦ The UGC to adopt affirmative action for students with special needs to have accessto all university courses, and necessary facilities provided for their education.

♦ Universities to be permitted to have aptitude/proficiency tests for the selection ofstudents for a particular stream after general admission.


♦ Staff recruitment: Universities to have autonomy in ALL recruitment – academic,administrative and non-academic staff. Universities to have the authority to advertiseand recruit persons directly, and all such recruitment to be based on merit.

♦ Appointment of non-academic cadre through the minister’s list to be discontinued asunacceptable.

♦ Council members: Selection of council members to be through a transparent,participatory process. University senates to have the power to ratify the nominees tothe councils, and suggest suitable names as external members to be considered asmembers of councils.

♦ The senate representatives at the university council to present the names of theproposed external members to the senate, whereupon the council to forward thesenames to the UGC.

♦ The UGC to continue as the appointing authority of councils but without interferenceby political authorities.

♦ Professional categories to be included in the councils to continue but be specified.Nominees to councils must be of a caliber to advise on university affairs.

21


Administrative Positions

♦ Administrative appointments: Appointments of VCs should be by the university inorder to ensure greater university autonomy and downward accountability.

♦ Appointment of SARs and SABs, ARs and other administrative staff (other than bursarsand registrars) to be decentralized to universities.

Financial Management

♦ Funds generated by universities to be taken out of the common university account,and greater flexibility to be given to universities to make decisions regarding theusage of such funds.

♦ Formulation of separate procurement guidelines on managing generated funds.

♦ Universities to draw up manuals of procedures subject to Treasury approval.

♦ Transparency on the part of universities on the use of generated funds.

22


Theme 3: Accountability and Responsibility within Universities andamong Academics and Administrators

Basic Principles

Better university governance calls for adherence to practices of accountabilityand responsibility within the universities and also among academics and administrators.Greater autonomy would be meaningful only when the university as an institution becomesmore accountable to its own communities while facilitating a culture of responsibility andaccountability in the relationship between academics, administrators and students.


National Level

♦ Provisions to be introduced in the Universities Act to guarantee academic freedom,freedom of expression and right to dissent in teaching, research and the disseminationof knowledge.


♦ Universities to initiate practices for greater openness of their processes of decisionmaking and implementation with greater input from all of its communities – academicand administrative staff as well as students.

♦ Practices for downward accountability and consultative decision making to be adoptedwhile ensuring transparency in the decision-making process at all levels of universityadministration.

♦ Vice-chancellors not to chair council meetings in order to ensure good governancepractices.


♦ Vice-chancellors to develop the practice of consulting the academic staff and solicitingtheir views openly when taking decisions affecting academics and students, such asclosure of faculties/university and reopening.

♦ VCs to share with the councils and senates directives and instructions received fromthe Ministry of Higher Education and the UGC on matters related to governance,teaching, institutional development, new directions and other aspects of the university.

23


♦ University senates to adopt rigorous standards and practices to evaluate proposednew courses in order to retain the autonomy of the university on curriculum matters.This will make the UGC only one of the facilitators in curriculum development andimplementation.

♦ Decisions taken at faculty boards, senates and councils to represent the views of themembers of these bodies, and not outside interests.

♦ Circulars from the Ministry of Higher Education and UGC to be discussed at thecouncil, senate and other statutory bodies of the university, and such deliberation tobe part of the agenda of meetings of these bodies.

♦ Steps to be taken to introduce consultation, transparency and accountability in decisionmaking by university administrative officials in order to change the existing bureaucraticculture and make it more efficient and transparent than in government departments.]

♦ University councils to closely scrutinize administrative decisions concerningexpenditure and financial implementation.

♦ Steps to be taken to promote better cooperation between academics andadministrators so that the administration acts as a supportive facilitator of theuniversity’s academic mandate.

♦ Student representation on different boards of governance to enable student interestsand voices to be heard in decision making.

♦ Universities to develop innovative programmes to make students conscious and awareof their rights as well as responsibilities as members of the university community,adults and citizens.

♦ Universities to adopt a policy of zero tolerance for harassment and discrimination onthe basis of class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, culture, religion and specialneeds.

Institutional Culture Level

♦ In the exercise of powers vested in a single individual, from VC to head of department,decisions to be made in a spirit of consultation and consensus.

♦ Administrative decisions made by VCs, deans and heads to be based on merit andthe facts of each case. Care to be taken to avoid division and factionalism within theuniversities, faculties and departments.

24


♦ Staff development programmes conducted by universities to aim at nourishing a cultureof democratic governance and sensitivity to diversity, pluralism, inclusivity andcollegiality at all levels of the university.

♦ Basic principles to be laid down for the conduct and interaction among staff andstudents, between senior and junior staff, and between administrative, academic andminor staff in order to facilitate better interpersonal relations among all members ofuniversity communities.

25


Theme 4: Appointment of the UGC, Vice-Chancellors, Councils andAcademic Administrators

Basic Principles

Controversies regarding appointments of UGC members, councils and vice-chancellors have highlighted the need to review the appointment processes in order toensure better governance. Flawed appointment processes and the appointment ofindividuals without strong academic backgrounds or proven managerial skills have givenrise to the criticism that this has paved the way for politicization of the higher educationsector, leading to the following consequences:

♦ Loss of autonomy of the UGC as well as universities.

♦ Manipulation of university affairs by political authorities.

♦ The belief among VCs and university councils that accountability lies with politicalauthorities rather than the university community and the public – the latter being theideal norm of university governance.


National/UGC Level

University Grants Commission

♦ The composition of the UGC to ensure ethnic and gender balance.

♦ The UGC to represent different subject/disciplinary areas. Its membership to beincreased to accommodate new members as suggested below:

UGC members to be appointed to represent the following subject expertise and tochair the respective standing committees: agriculture; distance education; education;engineering and architecture; humanities and social sciences; law; management studies;medical and dental sciences; sciences; veterinary and animal sciences.

♦ A separate standing committee to be appointed on open distance learning.

♦ A standing committee to be chaired or co-chaired by a subject expert where thecommission does not have the relevant subject expertise.

26



University Councils

♦ Appointing authority of university councils to continue to be the UGC.

♦ The criteria for members of the councils to be:

(a) Graduates with distinguished service in the relevant fields.

(b) Gender balance.

(c) Legal, financial (chartered accountant), administrative (Grade 1, SLAS officer)expertise.

(d) Disciplinary background of external members to be diverse and reflectinterests of the university.

♦ Former vice-chancellors or staff of a university to be excluded from appointment tothat university council to ensure objectivity in decision making.

♦ Directors of UGC recognized institutes established under specific ordinances (PGIA,PGIS, PGIM, PGIE, etc.) to be included in the council as internal members of respectiveuniversities.

♦ The number of council members to be expanded to accommodate new members assuggested above.

♦ A limit of one (1) term to be implemented for council members in the interest of goodgovernance.

Appointment of Vice-Chancellors

♦ The university council to select one (1) person to be formally appointed by thepresident. President to continue to be the appointing authority of VCs.

♦ A search committee of three members to be appointed by the senate to encouragesuitable candidates to apply to the post of VC.

♦ The search committee to shortlist qualified candidates to be interviewed by the council.

♦ In order to ensure transparency in the nomination process, each candidate shortlistedby the search committee to make a presentation before a joint session of the counciland senate, as part of the interview process, and the candidates to be evaluated ontheir presentations.

27


♦ If a VC applies for a second term, an independent evaluation of his/her performance,achievements, limitations and failures to be carried out, and the report considered inthe nomination process. Negative evaluation in the report should disqualify thecandidacy of a sitting VC for a second term.

Appointment of Deputy Vice-Chancellors

♦ The present ambiguity in the appointment process of deputy vice-chancellors (DVC)to be cleared by developing a clear procedure.

♦ The council to appoint the DVC after calling for applications and holding interviews.

♦ Provisions to be made to prevent arbitrary dismissal of a DVC by the council.

Appointment of Deans of Faculties

♦ The present provision that only serving heads of department are eligible for theappointment of dean to be changed to avoid manipulation, as well as to make theposition open to other qualified academic members of the faculty.

♦ All academic staff who have served as heads of department in a particular faculty,including persons who currently hold position as heads, to be eligible for election asdean.

♦ Candidates for the position of dean to possess prior experience in the position ofhead having served the full term.

Appointment of Heads of Department

♦ Heads of department to be appointed by the vice-chancellor on the recommendationof the dean in consultation with the department staff.

28


Theme 5: Grievance Mechanisms in the University Context

Basic Principles

It is important to recognize that grievances arise in university settings due to severalreasons that include: (a) lack of professionalism and commitment among staff, (b) absence/loss of a sense of community among both academics and non-academics, (c) conflictamong students, and (d) external pressure on the institution.

The handling of grievances needs to strike a balance between two compulsions:(a) safeguarding the institution’s ability to self-regulate and ensure that individuals andgroups within the institution have access to mechanisms of redress when the need arises,and (b) developing a culture in which grievances can be minimized, rather than addressedafter the incident.



♦ A grievance mechanism to be developed at every university with the followingmeasures and practices:

a) Right to information and right to demand information while preserving confidentiality.

b) A code of ethics for all categories of staff/students to ensure acceptable standards ofbehavior in staff-student relations, as well as among staff and students.

c) Strengthen career guidance provision for students by the academic staff as well asprofessional bodies to minimize student discontent.

d) Strengthen existing disciplinary procedures to avoid inefficiency, non-transparencyand manipulation.

e) Specific procedures to be adopted to deal with complaints of sexual harassment,taking into account the complexity of their psycho-social contexts.

f) Grievance-handling procedures to be integrated into staff development training.

g) Mechanisms to be developed to handle student disciplinary matters by an independentexternal body while preventing external pressure on university bodies in decisionmaking.

29


h) Universities to promote dialogue among academics and other university communitieson transparency, collective decision making, consensus building and accountabilityto ensure that such standards and strategies are institutionalized to prevent grievances.

i) Promotion of an institutional culture and practice of review by peers, students and theindividual to ensure quality and standards in teaching, research, publishing andadministration.

j) Development of clear pathways for redressing grievances at the department level.

k) Counselling units to be established at every university to facilitate psychological aswell as academic counseling.

l) Each faculty to establish an academic and student grievance-handling committee.

m) Academic representation on the Universities Appeal Board to be established.

Institutional Culture

♦ Checks and balances developed to prevent the concentration of power in individualsresulting in a lack of consultation, openness and collegiality.

♦ Promotion of sustained transparency in decision making and a culture of collegialityand consultative decision making.

♦ Prevent ethnic, religious and social/class segregation through greater intergroupinteraction, dialogue and communication.

♦ Promotion of an academic, administrative and managerial culture in which violationor ignoring of norms and practices of good governance is not rewarded, but corrected.

30


Theme 6: Rewards, Incentives and Best Practices within theUniversity System

Basic Principles

♦ The great diversity of institutions, careers and academics within the higher educationsector is a boon to fulfilling our collective role to society. This diversity in mission,location, university histories, cognate areas and preferred career paths should beappreciated and taken into account in designing rewards, incentives and best practices.Diversity should be encouraged, promoted and harnessed, rather than straight jacketedby a rigid ‘one-size-fits-all’ framework.

♦ The need to affirm academic freedom and ensure institutional autonomy will, in theeyes of the public, be most convincingly stated and safeguarded by also affirminginstitutional accountability to society.

♦ Academia’s overarching role and accountability relates to its relationship with thewider society, and not merely to its relationship with specific groups such as students,government politicians, funding agencies or industry, although these are the specificgroups that it must learn to deal with most closely.

♦ The guiding culture of universities should be one of collaboration rather thancompetition, a commons rather than a corporation, and collegiality rather than self-interest.

♦ Any scheme of good practices, incentives and rewards must be designed,implemented, monitored, reviewed and periodically revised with the above principlesin mind.



Academic Roles and Career Paths

♦ Teaching to be given primacy of place in the scheme of good practices, incentivesand rewards. The main role of an academic is as a teacher who transmits knowledge,fosters understanding, inculcates learning and inspires service in the leaders of thenext generation who are currently at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, aswell as the general public.

31


♦ The formulation of a new promotion scheme that corrects the anomalies of the currentprocess, which under-recognizes teaching. This scheme to recognize all three ‘careerpaths’ (teacher/educator, researcher/creator/innovator, and contributor to ‘nationaldevelopment’) and accord them due recognition. The category of national developmentto be redefined to include acknowledgement of contribution to civil society, the non-state sector and creativity at the national level.

Promotion of Diversity

♦ Scheme of rewards, incentives and best practices to reflect specific university contexts.The scheme to be a matrix that takes into account both the context-specific diversityof each university and the maintenance of minimum standards.

♦ Norms and standards, at a baseline level, to be approved by the relevant universitysenate. The University Grants Commission and national bodies in charge of cognateareas of study to provide input and/or oversight of these minimum standards.

Norms, Conduct and Ethics

♦ The development of a code of professional ethics for academics. Academics to benotified, trained, supported and monitored by peers on a transparent basis onadherence to this code of ethics.

♦ Standing committees to develop and periodically review norms considering minimumbench marks, different career paths and the specific contexts of universities.

♦ Development of a formal system of mentoring for all academics, with special focuson junior academics.

Accountability

♦ Individual academics to be required to perform a predetermined amount of work eachyear in each of the three career paths that will be negotiated and decided at the levelof the department and a faculty committee. An academic’s performance will bereviewed at the end of the year linked to increment.

♦ Rewards to be given where the academic demonstrates work clearly beyond thisagreed amount. Such rewards may consist, for example, of full sponsorship to attendan overseas conference provided he/she makes an academic presentation (e.g.,presenting an abstract, conducting a workshop, participation as a panelist). Thecumulative work performed will constitute the academic’s portfolio for promotion,including merit promotion, at all levels.

32


♦ Assessment of work to be carried out through a scheme that combines both quantityand quality, while giving primacy to quality over quantity at the levels of both individualwork and a collective portfolio. Currently the assessment of work on the basis of thequantity produced has given rise to negative outcomes, such as profusion of poor-quality, inconsequential papers, obsession with measures such as impact factor andh-index, and the neglect of activities that do not yield significant research papers.

♦ Guidelines to be developed for external reviewers on qualitative marking, ethics andconsistency in reporting.

♦ Guidelines to be developed for strengthening the administrative capacity for processingpromotion applications, and holding interviews within six months of submission ofapplication.

♦ Leave during vacation to be made available in a flexible manner throughout the yearfor all academics, given that currently academic calendars are not uniform, and donot specify a three-month vacation.

Facilities for Promoting Work

♦ As an incentive for research, if the university is to deduct a percentage of a grant oraward (e.g., research grant) won by an academic or a group of academics, then theuniversity is to support, in return, the work related to that grant (e.g., preparation ofaccounts related to the grant, acquisition and procurement of material necessary tocarry out the work related to the grant without delay, writing reports related to thegrant).

♦ All academics to be given adequate infrastructure and facilities to carry out their work(including a communication allowance, computers and devices, software andmaintenance services).

General

♦ The criteria for appointing ‘chairs’ of disciplines to be amended so that due recognitionis given to the academic/professional contribution made by the applicant to discipline(s)related to the chair.

♦ The nomenclature of chairs and their eligibility criteria to be reviewed and modifiedperiodically, so that disciplinary changes are acknowledged and ‘outdated’ chairs areended.

♦ The nomenclature of departments to be periodically reviewed to reflect disciplinarytrends.

33


Theme 7: Context-Specific Governance Issues in Relatively NewUniversities in the Periphery

Basic Principles

Although all the national universities under the UGC have equal status, there aresome specifically identifiable characteristics affecting university governance in universitiesthat are relatively newer and located away from Colombo, due to historical and otherreasons.

Recommendations made below stem from the problems specific to the universities in theperiphery.

Issues

♦ Circumstances have compelled the university authorities to report to external actorsrather than being primarily accountable to their own university communities.

♦ Due to (a) the geographical distance from the Ministry of Higher Education and theUGC, and (b) the specific circumstances under which they were established,universities in the periphery are subjected to discrimination in matters relating togovernance, resources and the redressing of grievances.

♦ Many of these universities have limited experience/traditions of university autonomy,academic freedom and good governance due to a variety of structural reasons andpolitical circumstances.

♦ Authorities in these universities are dependent on the UGC and other authorities foradministrative guidance, preventing the emergence of a culture of consultativegovernance within these bodies.

♦ There is greater space for abuse of power in these universities due to the limitedavailability of human resources, including seniors academics. Since most of theacademic staff is relatively young, they are powerless to resist the few seniors whowield a great deal of power and authority.

♦ There is external political interference in the recruitment of staff.

♦ Lack of expertise or interest in university affairs and academic matters among membersof these respective university councils due to the lack of qualified human resourcesin the regions where these universities are located.

34



National Level

♦ Provision of adequate material resources, academic and administrative staff,accommodation facilities for staff and students, and long-term planning when newuniversities in the regions are established.

♦ Allocation of special funds to upgrade and rebuild the infrastructure of universitiesthat face a crisis of resources and infrastructure.

♦ The UGC to appoint a committee of inquiry to study and make recommendations onthe problems of governance, resource limitations and standards of academicprogrammes in universities in the periphery in order to raise their standards to nationallevel.

♦ The establishment of a UGC Standing Committee on Universities in the Periphery.

♦ The UGC to promptly address requests for redressing grievances from academicsand others of the universities in the periphery.

♦ Different rules to be established for the allocation of funds, appointment of staff,scholarships, equipment, etc., for these universities in a framework of ‘positivediscrimination’ in order to raise their standards on the principle of equity.

♦ In order to overcome the limited availability of qualified personnel from the area, oneperson from the three former external members of the faculty board to be appointedto the council.


♦ Vice-chancellors of these universities to initiate new practices of consultative andtransparent governance, with less reliance on guidance from the UGC and the Ministryof Higher Education in Colombo.

♦ Staff facilities to be upgraded to include living quarters, child care, crèche facilitiesand good schools in the neighbourhood in order to attract and retain good staff.

♦ Representatives from teachers’ associations to be included in various committeessuch as the Leave and Awards Committee, Canteen Committee, Residence Committeeand Library Committee in order to check abuse of power and for better governance.

♦ Police posts set up in the universities to be removed.

35


References

European University Association, 2007, Lisbon Declaration on Autonomy and Governance in European Universities,http://archive.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Newsletter_new/autonomy_summary.pdf

Needham Commission Report, Sessional Paper XXIII of 1959, Colombo: Ceylon Government Press.

Report of the University Commission, January 1929 (Riddle Commission Report), Sessional Paper IV- 1929, Colombo:Ceylon Government Printer.

Report of the University Commission of 1962 (Gunawardena Commission Report), Sessional Paper XVI of 1963,Colombo: Ceylon Government Press.

UNESCO, 1997, Recommendations Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13144&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

University of Ceylon Ordinance No. 20 of 1942, Colombo; Ceylon Government Printer.

Universities Act No. 16, 1978. http://www.ugc.ac.lk/en/policy/universities-act.html

World University Service, 1988, Lima Declaration of Academic Freedom and Autonomy, Geneva: World UniversityService.

36


Annexure - I

Excerpts from the Supreme Court determination, delivered on 03. 05, 1999, onthe case, Attorney General vs. Udagama and others, by Justice R. N. M.Dheeraratne, Justice A. S. Wijetunga and Justice S. A. Bandaranayake

Nine petitions were filed alleging that clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (b), 9 (2A), 11, 12 and 13 of the Bill entitled“A Bill to Amend the Universities Act No. 16 of 1978” were inconsistent with Articles 3, 4, 1-, 12 (i), 12 (2), 14 (i)(a) and 14 (1) (g) of the Constitution. These petitions were referred to this Bench by His lordship the ChiefJustice and were taken up for consideration together on 03rd May, 1999. In the course of arguments, it wassubmitted that the clause 10 of the Bill too was inconsistent with the Constitution.

It was submitted that some of the provisions of the Bill erode “academic freedom” and “autonomy”. Ourattention was drawn to the Lima Declaration on “academic freedom and autonomy” of Institutions of HigherEducation. In that Declaration academic freedom was defined to mean “the freedom of members of the academiccommunity, individually or collectively, in the pursuit, development and transmission of knowledge, throughresearch, study, discussion, documentation, production, creation, teaching, lecturing and writing”. Autonomywas defined in that Declaration to mean “the independence of the institutions of higher education from theState and all other forces of society, to make decisions regarding its internal government, finance, administrationand to establish its politics, research, extension work and other related activities.”

We agree that academic freedom and autonomy are essential requisites for the attainment of the objectivesof any institution of Higher Education.

The UNESCO, at a meeting in Paris from 21 October to 12 November 1997 in respect of higher educationinter alia resolved as follows:

“17.The proper enjoyment of academic freedom and compliance with the duties andresponsibilities listed below requiring the autonomy of institutions of Higher Education. Autonomyis that degree of self-governance necessary for effective decision making by institutions of HigherEducation regarding their academic work, standards, management and related activities, consistentwith systems of public accountability, especially in respect of funding provided by the state andrespect for academic freedom and human rights. However, the nature of institutional autonomymay differ according to the type of establishment involved.

18. Autonomy is the institutional form of academic freedom and a necessary pre-condition to guaranteethe proper fulfilment of the functions entrusted to higher-educational teaching personnel andinstitutions.

19. Member states are under an obligation to protect higher education institutions from threats to theirautonomy coming from any source.”

We agree with the submissions made that any erosion made on academic freedom and autonomy wouldinfringe on Article 10 and 14 (1) g of the constitution.

37


Annexure - II

NAME INSTITUTION

Rev. Kadawathgama Piyarathna Thero Bhiksu University of Sri LankaRev. Wewala Dhammaloka Thero Bhiksu University of Sri LankaMr. Pradeep Gunailaka Bhiksu University of Sri LankaMrs. G. S. Godakandha Bhiksu University of Sri LankaProf. Gallelle Sumanasiri Thero (VC) Buddhist and Pali University of Sri LankaProf. Wavwwe Dhammarakkitha Thero Buddhist and Pali University of Sri LankaMr. R. A. Piyaratna Buddhist and Pali University of Sri LankaMr. Samantha Illangakoon Buddhist and Pali University Sri LankjaProf. P. Vinobaba Eastern University, Sri LankaDr. T. Jayasingham Eastern University, Sri LankaDr. P. Sivarajah Eastern University, Sri LankaDr. Jeyasankar Sivagnanam Eastern University, Sri LankaDr. K. E. Karunakaran Eastern University, Sri LankaDr. K. Rajendram Eastern University, Sri LankaMr. A. Pahirathan Eastern University, Sri LankaMr. Thilainathan Sathaananthan Eastern University, Sri LankaMr. T. Mathiventhan Eastern University, Sri LankaMr. V. Kanagasingam Eastern University, Sri LankaMr. S. K. Jayawardhana Eastern University, Sri LankaProf. Narada Warnasuriya Kotalawela Defense UniversityMr. P. Ranepura Ministry of Higher EducationProf. Sanath Hettiarachchi Rajarata University of Sri LankaDr. M. G. T. S. Amarasekera Rajarata University of Sri LankaMr. M. I. Fasil-Ur-Rahman Rajarata University of Sri LankaProf. M. M. M. Najim South Eastern University of Sri LankaDr. M. I. S. Saffeena South Eastern University of Sri LankaDr. S. M. Junaideen South Eastern University of Sri LankaDr. S M. Ahmed Lebbe South Eastern University of Sri LankaDr. Abubakhar Rameez South Eastern University of Sri LankaMr. M. S. M. Jalaldeen South Eastern University of Sri LankaMr. H. Abdul Sathar South Eastern University of Sri LankaMr. S. M. Aliff South Eastern University of Sri LankaProf. S. A. Ariadurai Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaProf. G. R. R. Ranawaka Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaProf J. C. N. Rajendra Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaProf. Rohan Fernando Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaProf. Camena Gunaratne Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaDr. K. A. C. Udayakumar Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaDr. Harini Amarasuriya Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaDr. Dileepa Witharana Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaDr. Shantha Abeysinghe Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaDr. Harshana Rambukwella Open University of Sri Lanka of Sri LankaProf. Chandana P. Udawatte Sabaragamuwa University of Sri LankaDr. Ranmalee Bandara Sabaragamuwa University of Sri LankaDr. Athula Gnanapala Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka

Workshop Participants

38


NAME INSTITUTION

Dr. Manoj Ariyaratne Sabaragamuwa University of Sri LankaMr. H Careem Sabaragamuwa University of Sri LankaProf. Sasanka Perera South Asian University, New DelhiProf. Mohan de Silva Univbersity Grants CommissionProf. P. S. M. Senaratne University Grants CommissionProf. Lakshman Dissanayake University of ColomboProf. Lalitha Mendis University of Colombo (Formerly)Prof. Athula Ranasignhe University of ColomboProf. Neloufer De Mel University of ColomboProf. Marie Perera University of ColomboProf. Nayani Melagoda University of ColomboProf. Premakumara de Silva University of ColomboProf. J. A. S. K. Jayakody University of ColomboProf. Devaka Weerakoon University of ColomboProf. K. R. R. Mahanama University of ColomboProf. Sumedha Jayaneththi University of ColomboProf. Rohini Hewamanne University of ColomboProf. Tara Silva University of ColomboProf. Saroj Jayasinghe University of ColomboProf. C. P. D. W. Mathew University of ColomboProf. Gameela Samarasinghe University of ColomboProf. Asanga Tilakaratne. University of ColomboProf. W. Chandradasa University of ColomboProf. Jennifer Perera University of ColomboProf. S. W. Kotagama University of ColomboDr. Nirmal Devasiri University of ColomboDr. Godwin Constantine University of ColomboDr. Indika Karunaratne University of ColomboDr. Pavithra Kailasapathy University of ColomboDr. Subhangi Herath University of ColomboDr. Mohamed Mahees University of ColomboDr. Dushyanthi Mendis University of ColomboDr. Janaki Jayawardene University of ColomboDr. Asantha Attanayake University of ColomboDr. Gominda Ponnamperuma University of ColomboDr. Thilan Hewage University of ColomboDr. Nirmali Pallewatte University of ColomboDr. R. D. Gunaratne University of ColomboDr. Ruwan Weerasinghe University of ColomboDr. Panduka Karunanayake University of ColomboDr. Gominda Ponnamperuma University of ColomboDr. Wasantha Gunathuga University of ColomboDr. Shrinika Weerakoon University of ColomboDr. Dulani Samaranayake University of ColomboDr. P. C. P. Fernando University of ColomboDr. Ranjan Dias University of ColomboDr. Jean Perera University of ColomboDr. Sunethra Perera University of ColomboDr. Kumudika Boyagoda University of Colombo

39


Dr. K. V. Dhanapala University of ColomboDr. Ranjan Hettiarachchi University of ColomboDr. M. D. Piyathilake University of ColomboDr. R. Senathiraja University of ColomboDr. Farah Haniffa University of ColomboMr. Mahesh Senanayake University of ColomboMs. Shivanee Ilangakoon University of ColomboMs. Dinesha Samararatne University of ColomboMs. Vajira Hapuhinna Jayaratne University of ColomboP. Wiratunge University of ColomboMs. K. S. T. S. Jayasooriya University of ColomboJ. S. Jayasooriya University of ColomboMr. K. A. S. Edwards University of ColomboMs. W. I. Nanayakkare University of ColomboMs. Wasantha Seneviratne University of ColomboMr. Bhageshri Fonseka University of ColomboMs. S. A. A. M. Perera University of ColomboMr. R. Logendra University of ColomboProf. K. Kandasamy University of JaffnaProf. G. Mikunthan University of JaffnaDr. Subhathini Ramesh University of JaffnaMr. N. Rajavisahan University of JaffnaMrs. S. Kumarasamy University of JaffnaProf. H. H. Sumathipala University of KelaniyaDr. P. M. C. Thillakarathna University of KelaniyaDr. Kaushalya Perera University of KelaniyaProf. Ananda Jayawardane University of MoratuwaProf. S. A. Dileeka Dias University of MoratuwaProf. Priyan Dias University of MoratuwaDr. Rangika Halvatura University of MoratuwaMr. A. L. Joufer Sadique University of MoratuwaMr. P. M. Karunaratne University of MoratuwaProf. Milton Rajaratne University of PeradeniyaProf. Navaratne Bandara University of PeradeniyaProf. Upul B. Dissanayake University of PeradeniyaDr. Ananda Jayawickrama University of PeradeniyaDr. Sumathy Sivamohan University of PeradeniyaDr. Deepika Udagama University of PeradeniyaDr. Shamala Kumar University of PeradeniyaDr. Dhammika Herath University of PeradeniyaDr. Anada Jayawickrama University of PeradeniyaDr. Upul Abeyratne University of RuhunaDr. K. K. I. U. Anura University of RuhunaProf. Sampath Amaratunge University of Sri JayawardenepuraProf. Sudantha Liyanage University of Sri JayawardenepuraDr. U. Anura Kumara University of Sri JayawardenepuraMr. K. G. Britto University of Sri JayawardenepuraProf. Ranjith Fernando University of Visual and Performing ArtsMr. Chandragupta Thenuwara University of Visual and Performing Arts

NAME INSTITUTION

40


NAME INSTITUTION

Ms. R. T. M. Ranatunga University of Visual and Performing ArtsMs. D. N. Gurusinghe University of Visual and Performing ArtsProf. S. J. B. A. Jayasekera Wayamba University of Sri LankaProf. D. P. S. T. G. Attanayake Wayamba University of Sri LankaDr. E. M. P. Ekanayake Wayamba University of Sri LankaDr. M. S. W. De Silva Wayamba University of Sri LankaMr. G. Piyaratne Wayamba University of Sri Lanka

41


Annexure - III

Thematic Sub-Committees

Sub-Committee Theme Convener Rapporteur

1. Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability

2. Accountability and responsibility in university-government relations

3. Accountability and responsibility in governance within universities

4. Appointment processes of VCs and members to university councils

5. Grievance mechanisms at all levels

6. Rewards, incentives and best practices within the university system

7. Governance issues in relatively new universities in the periphery

Professor Priyan Dias(University of Moratuwa)

Professor Lalitha Mendis(formerly University of Colombo)

Professor Navaratne Bandara(University of Peradeniya)

Professor Rohan Fernando(Open University)

Professor Camena Gooneratne(Open University)

Dr. Panduka Karunanayake(University of Colombo)

Dr. T. Jayasingam(Eastern University)

Mr. Dileepa Witharana(Open University)

Dr. Dinesha Samararatne(University of Colombo)

Dr. Sivamohan Sumathy(University of Peradeniya)

Dr. Harini Amarasuriya(Open University)

Dr. Harshana Rambukwella(Open University)

Dr. Gominda Ponnamperuma(University of Colombo)

Dr. T. Mathiventhan(Eastern University)

42

university governance, autonomy and - university of … i was appointed the vice chancellor of the...

Documents