”Deep dissatisfaction” with Unisa’s management accounts for an ”abysmal” voter turnout in elections last year for two of the university’s most important bodies, suggests a report written by Dr Marie Heese, election officer and chairperson of the Unisa Electoral Commission.
And, once again, the turbulent university’s controversial council runs into flak, with staff members accusing it of overriding decisions that are not properly in its power to make.
The report, of which the Mail & Guardian has a copy, says elections for the senate were held in two phases in November last year. In the first one-quarter of academic staff and 16% of administrative employees voted. In the second phase, a total of 15,7% of staff turned out to cast their votes. For the Institutional Forum just 8% of staff bothered to vote. No result could be announced in this election, as a minimum 25% turnout is required.
Senates are by law responsible for a university’s academic programmes and other matters of direct academic import such as senior appointments.
Senates, for example, need to be consulted on vice-chancellorship appointments. An Institutional Forum is required by legislation to advise an institution’s council on matters of governance, and is made up of student, union and academic representatives, among others.
Heese’s report is a customary post-election analysis that is due to be tabled before Unisa’s senate. The report set out to find explanations for ”a marked degree of apathy, indeed antagonism, which resulted in too few nominations in several instances, purposely spoilt ballots and an abysmally low voter turnout”.
”Waste of time,” one staff member told Heese, according to her report. ”Even if you go get a decision taken, the council overrides it anyway.”
Another commented: ”Council is run like a personal fiefdom by the chair, and senate is ignored.”
Councils are the highest decision-making bodies of universities. They determine overall strategic direction, appoint senior managers to implement policies, and monitor the functioning of management.
However, a repeated complaint about Unisa’s council, headed by McCaps Motimele, is that it interferes in daily executive management.
The M&G has previously reported academics’ complaints that the council’s overturning of academic appointments, ratified by the senate, is an example of characteristic interference since Motimele took the reins more than two years ago.
”Council rides roughshod over the senate and ignores its recommendations and decisions,” one academic told Heese.
”Ek sit al van 1979 op die senaat,” said another staffer quoted in Heese’s report, ”maar hierdie een was ‘n gepeupel. Dis die woord wat ek wil gebruik. Gepeupel. Nie ‘n akademiese liggaam nie [I have had a seat on the senate since 1979, but this one was a mob. That is the word I want to use. A mob. Not an academic body].”
One spoilt ballot in the senate elections had ”This is not democratic” written on it; another recommended: ”Elect whoever you please.”
”The senate is a circus,” wrote one academic Heese quotes. Another concurred: ”It was a circus. I am absolutely gatvol. No more.”
Heese’s report draws three conclusions: ”Council overrides senate; the senate does not function well; the composition of the senate is not appropriate in terms of its function as an academic governance structure.”
Yet Heese notes too that she submitted an evaluation of 1999 elections to the university’s management. But ”it does not seem as if that report was read, or if it was, it had no discernible effect since almost all of its recommendations were ignored”.
Unisa vice-chancellor Dr Barney Pityana did not respond to the M&G‘s faxed request for comment.