Report of the
Portfolio Committee on Education on it’s oversight
visit to the
1.1 Background:
The Portfolio Committee on Education mandated a
multi-party delegation that conducted an oversight visit to the Vaal University of Technology on the 19 May 2008. During
the visit, the Committee interacted with top management of the university,
unions and the various student organisations.
The procedure in which the meetings were conducted was
that, the various stakeholders were given an opportunity to express their
opinions, and the delegation would comment and raise question that needed
clarity. The programme of the visit was drafted in a manner that accommodated
the different stakeholders an opportunity to express their opinions on the
situation that prevailed at the University then.
The programme of the visit was drafted as follows:
1.2 Delegation:
The delegation was led by the Chairperson of the
Committee, Prof S Mayatula (ANC), accompanied by Mr
B Mthembu
(ANC), Mr R Ntuli (ANC), Mr R van den Heever
(ANC), Mr G Boinamo (DA), Ms C Dudley (ACDP), and Mr
I Mfundisi (UCDP). The members of the support staff
were Mr Anele Kabingesi
(Committee Secretary), Mr Andile Mphunga
(Committee Researcher), Mrs Nocawe Mxinwa (Party Researcher), Mr Vuyisile
Mfuniselwa (Committee Assistant) and Ms Khanyisa Ndyondya (Parliamentary
Media).
VUT Members:
Prof I Moutlana:
Vice-Chancellor, Prof G Zide: Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Institutional Support, Prof A Louw: Deputy
Vice-Chancellor Academic, Prof P Naidoo: Deputy
Vice-Chancellor Resource & Planning, Mr K Kasankola:
Senior Director Human Resources, Mr F Tsieane: Executive Director Finance, Mr T Mokoena: Registrar Academic Support
1.3 Terms of
Reference/ Purpose of the meeting:
The purpose of the oversight visit was to interact
with the various stakeholders of the university including top management on the
following issues: NSFAS bursary, student drop-out, transformation plan and, the
situation that prevailed at the university then. The Committee also felt very
strong to be briefed on the resolutions of the violence that hit the university
at the beginning of the year.
1.4 Findings:
The
delegation of the Portfolio Committee on Education, having conducted an
oversight visit to the Vaal University of Technology,
discovered the following key issues:
§
There was consensus
that VUT is emerging from a culture that was characterised by policy void,
unyielding power of students (particularly the Student Representative Council),
ad hoc appointment of staff and low productivity.
§
The University did
not have a transformation plan. The process of crafting a transformation plan
was in progress as there was currently a process of stakeholder engagement to
develop the terms of reference for the facilitator.
§
The succession plan
of VUT had not been implemented in the past, leading to low staff
retention. High staff turnover was also
caused by the competition between industry and institutions of higher learning,
largely related to competitive salaries.
§
Various student
leadership formations did not trust the management and had a fear of being
victimised due to their participation in student leadership activities.
§
The provision of
transport to students attending lecturers was a cause for concern to students.
2. Meeting at the VUT Chambers:
Prof
Irene Moutlana welcomed the delegation of the PC on
Education and other special guest to the meeting. She acknowledged that, the
visit of the PC on Education was highly appreciated by management and other
stakeholders of the institution. She
handed over to the Chairperson and leader of the delegation Prof. S. Mayatula to introduce the delegation and, brief the meeting about the purpose of the visit.
Prof. S.
Mayatula, the Chairperson and leader of the
delegation of the PC on Education briefly introduced the delegation together
with the support staff. The Chairperson
briefly outlined the mandate of the committee as conducting oversight from
Grade R to the highest institutions of learning and, responsibility of
considering all legislation that affects education. He mentioned that, as part
of its oversight function, the committee visits institutions of higher learning
to obtain a broader perspective of the situation of the institution from its
various stakeholders. He indicated that, the committee was not visiting the
institution to make any judgements.
However, the purpose of the visit was to be briefed by management and relevant
stakeholders about key issues that
affected the institution and, given the institution’s policies, what has been
done to address those critical issues.
2.1 Presentation by Prof I Moutlana:
Vice-Chancellor
Prof.
Irene Moutlana, the Vice-Chancellor VUT, welcomed the
opportunity to present to the delegation of the Portfolio Committee on
Education. She appreciated the Committee’s
willingness to help the VUT. Her presentation focused on matters that took
place in 2007 and the progress made in 2008.
The VC
indicated that, in 2006 the former VC Mr A Mokadi’s
services were terminated due to allegations of mismanagement of the
institution. In 2007, Prof. I. Moutlana was appointed
as the new Vice-Chancellor of VUT. On her arrival, the institution was much
disorganized. There were no policies in the institution. The SRC was occupying 16 offices of the institution. The SRC
members were receiving prestige awards and free meals. The open door policy was abused. There were
many ad hoc appointments and many people holding acting positions. The students had significant power and
overlooked senior management for their interest. Restructuring of staff was
happening willy-nilly, without any order.
The image of the institution had been shattered by poor academic results
and low throughput. The partnership of the institution and its donors was
affected negatively. It was discovered that, one student had been doing a
Diplomas for over 10 years and some more than 6 years. External sources were
thinking that, the institution was to be degraded from a university of
technology to a college.
In 2008,
the institution approached the Department of Education to assist it with the
Institutional Operational Plan (IOP). Through this IOP a number of focus areas
were identified. The institution submitted a remedial plan to the Higher
Education Qualifications Committee (HEQC) for recommendations. A meeting with
the Minister of Education was organized to improve teaching outputs and issues
around student accommodation. The risk assessment and 2nd phase of
Disaster Recovery plan had been completed. The institution established a
whistle blowing facility that was aimed at reducing misconduct of both students
and staff members. After a long process of consultation with the DoE and the
institution’s stakeholders, the Klerksdorp Campus was
finally phased out. The institution managed to accommodate students from the Klersdorp Campus to continue with their studies effectively.
A resolution was implemented that resulted in the creation of thirty new lecturing posts and six others in key
support positions to boost the institutions productivity.
2.2 Current challenges:
2.3 Achievements:
2.4 Concluding remarks:
In
concluding the presentation, Prof I Moutlana
indicated that with the appointment of the new Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the
institution has developed a five-year marketing plan and, employed experts in
marketing in order to attract more donors to the institution. Management was
proposing to change the logo of the institution because it was too old and not
in line with the mandate of the institution. The events that took place at the
beginning of the year erupted as a result that student demanded extension on
the registration period. However, after that incident the situation of the
institution had been calm and academic activities were normal. The institution
would like the committee to assist it by ensuring that additional resources are
provided from government to bring the institution on the same infrastructure
and capacity levels as that of other higher education institutions.
3. Meeting with the Unions:
Prof S Mayatula welcomed the Unions to the meeting. He mentioned
that, the committee was in the institution as part of its oversight function
over institutions of higher learning. He indicated that the committee had
invited the Unions in order for them to
express their opinions on the situation of the institution and, later give
feedback to management. After this visit, the committee would compile a report
with recommendations and, that report will be presented to National Assembly.
The Minister of Education would then implement the resolution taken from the
report.
National Union of Tertiary Educators of
Mr
Martin Joubert, the Chairperson of Nutesa led the presentation. His presentation highlighted
the following key issues:
NEHAWU:
Mr Stone
Liphoko, the Chairperson of Nehawu,
welcomed the opportunity to present the input of Nehawu.
His presentation highlighted the following key issues:
3.1 Questions and comments raised by
Members:
It
emerged that, there was racism in the dispensation of lecturers. The committee
wanted to know, whether remuneration of lecturers was based on race.
A point
was raised earlier concerning the union’s dissatisfaction in the dismissal of
the former Vice-Chancellor. The delegation wanted to know, whether this case
was not being handled by the labour court.
The
committee was very concerned with the role played by both Unions in the
institution. The committee was shocked to notice that Nehawu
was presented by majority black representatives while Nutesa
was entirely white representatives. The committee wanted to know whether there
was integration of race within the Unions.
It
emerged that the unions were dissatisfied with the departure of qualified
lecturers to industries. The committee informed the Unions that, this was a
national problem that affected other higher education institutions. The
committee further elaborated that, lecturers were being attracted by good
remuneration / package that is offered by industries.
It
emerged from Nehawu that, workers rights especially
the support staff were not recognized. A question was asked whether the unions
did inform management concerning this issue.
3.2 Responses from the Unions:
The
Unions play a very important role in representing labour rights in the
institution. Nehawu represents the majority of
support staff while Nutesa represents the academic
staff. There is integration of race in both Unions because, they consist of
both races.
The
institution does not have a policy in place that looked after the interest of
workers. The support staff were not valued by
management of the institution since promotion was only given to academic staff.
The budget allocated to pay salaries to the support staff should be increased
because currently the dispensation of support staff is unacceptable.
The
unions were not properly consulted in regard to the dismissal of the former
Vice-Chancellor. The only information they received was that, the former VC was
charged with criminal offences and the case was before the labour court.
4. Meeting with Student Leadership:
Prof S Mayatula welcomed the students to the meeting. He briefly
introduced the mandate of the committee as passing all legislation affecting
education and oversight responsibility over institutions of higher learning and
even schools. He further indicated that the Committee invited student
leadership to express its opinion on the critical issues that affects the
institution. He indicated that management was to be informed of the issues
raised by students.
a) Presentation by the Young Communist
League (YCL):
Mr T Mbengeni, the Secretary of the YCL highlighted the
following key issues:
b) Presentation by the South African
Students Congress (SASCO):
Mr Sedimo Thabani, the Secretary of
SASCO highlighted the following key issues:
c) Presentation by Black Management Forum -
Student Chapter:
Mr. Tsepo Marumule highlighted the
following issues:
d)
Presentation by the Student’s Representative Council (SRC):
Mr
Donald Manganye, the President of SRC highlighted the
following key issues:
Mr. David Tsotetsi,
Member of the SRC:
e) Presentation by the Student Christian
Organization (SCO):
Mr
Progress Sandlane, the Secretary of SCO highlighted
the following key issues:
4.1 Questions and comments raised by
Members:
It was
observed that, the students were questioning the legitimacy and role played by
the Council in the institution. The committee wanted more clarity on this
issue.
Members
asked, whether there was evidence regarding allegations towards the institution
with allegation of fraud.
It was
evident that, students were very afraid to raise their opinions to management
because of the fear of being punished. A question was asked, whether management
was victimizing students leaders.
It
emerged from all student leaders that, the manner in which the institution was
utilising its finances was highly questionable. The committee wanted more
clarity on this issue.
4.2 Responses:
The SRC
offices were indeed 16 and the SRC representatives liaised
with the Council in requesting these offices and the Council approved the
request. The money that is paid to SRC leader goes to their fees and, it is not
for personal gain or interest.
International
students paid a levy of R1800 per annum and, there was no transparency to what
was being done with that money. The conditions in the residential areas and cafeteria
are not good. However, institution receives funds from the Department of
Education and, there is no
transparency in the utilisation of the institution’s finances.
The
management of the institution was victimizing the political structures of the institution.
Political leaders were threatened for expressing their views to management and,
some of them were being told that, they will never finish their Degree’s or
Diplomas.
The
strike that took place at the beginning of the year occurred for a valid
reason. Students were striking to be registered as some of them were in a
waiting list for a very long time. There was no intention for requesting bashes
as claimed by the Vice-Chancellor.
The
selection procedure of members of the Council was not constitutional. The
Council had a very close working relationship with the Department of Education
which is questionable. The Council was not looking after students interests as
their voices are not being recognized by it.
The
memorandum that was written to the Minister of Education by student leadership
of the institution never got a response. The department did not respond to the
request of the students in appealing against the closure of the Klerksdorp Campus. Students were never consulted about the
closure of this Campus and, they feel that, they are being excluded in the
activities of the institution.
Students
demanded that, there should be honesty and transparency in the utilisation of
the institutional funds.
5. Feedback to management:
The
committee, having conducted meetings with both the unions and student
leadership reported the following observations to management:
5.1 Responses:
Students
of this institution had a free access to the office of the former
Vice-Chancellor. Since the arrival of the new Vice-Chancellor, that was
completely stopped and students had to follow a proper procedure when
requesting for a meeting with management. Management did not exclude student
leadership in its meetings. However, the problem with the students was that,
they demanded meetings whenever they wanted
without following procedures.
The
appointment of Council members was legitimate and constitutional. The statues
were followed properly in the appointment of the all Council members. The
students were complaining because most of the times they would not be present
in the sub-council meetings.
Students
were never victimized by management of this institution. However, the problem
with the students was that, they did not follow the statutes and
constitutionality with regards to their presentation to the sub-council
meetings where major decisions are made.
The
funeral levy was established to support the family of the deceased student with
funds at the time of despair. However, the students wished that, the money of
the funeral policy that remains at the end of be used for something else.
The
institution was aware of the transport problem experienced by students and, a
transport committee was established to address this issue. However, some
students did not bother to buy a bus ticket and, this had negative impact on
the service provider.
6. Conclusion:
Prof S Mayatula expressed his gratitude to the management of the
VUT for the meeting. He indicated that, the meetings with various stakeholders
of the institution gave the committee an in-depth understanding of the
situation of the institution. He mentioned that, the committee was going to
make recommendations and, present those recommendations to Parliament for the
executive to implement.
7. Recommendations:
The
committee recommends that the University give consideration to the following:
Report to be considered