ATC181031: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on its oversight visit to the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (Cput), dated 31 October 2018

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING ON ITS OVERSIGHT VISIT TO THE CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (CPUT), DATED 31 OCTOBER 2018
 

The Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training having conducted an oversight visit to the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) on 28 March 2018, reports as follows.

1. Delegation list

1.1 Members of the Committee

Hon D Kekana (ANC), Hon J Kilian (ANC), Hon R Mavunda (ANC), Hon C September: Chairperson (ANC), Hon B Bozzoli (DA) and Hon A van der Westhuizen (DA).

1.2 Support staff

Mr A Kabingesi: Committee Secretary, Ms M Modiba: Content Adviser and Mr L Ben: Committee Assistant.

2. Introduction and background

The Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) is one of the four institutions of higher learning in the Western Cape with six campuses, namely: Bellville, Cape Town, Granger Bay, Mowbray and Wellington. The University has six faculties (Applied Sciences, Business, Education and Social Sciences, Engineering, Health and Wellness Sciences and Informatics and Design) across the six campuses. The University had registered approximately 33 820 students for the 2018 academic year.

In 2017, the University experienced violent student protests accompanied by destruction of infrastructure. The protracted student protests disrupted teaching and learning and also threatened to interrupt the completion of the 2017 academic year. There were also various allegations levelled against the Vice-Chancellor that subsequently led to his suspension. The Chairperson of the council also resigned from his position following the suspension of the VC and the University experienced leadership vacuum but an Acting VC had been appointed.

The Committee was inundated with correspondence from students and workers of the University regarding the victimization of students and staff at the institution. The students and staff also complained about the alleged corruption, non-implementation of the employment equity plan of the institution and the poor response by management to stakeholders’ grievances.

In light of the above, the Committee resolved to invite the management of the University on 13 September 2018 to account for some of the allegations that were submitted by the stakeholders. The Committee was unable to sufficiently deal with all the matters raised by students and staff at the meeting with the management and resolved to visit the institution at the beginning of 2018.

The oversight visit to the University was a follow-up from the previous engagement between the University and the Committee in September 2017. As part of the oversight visit, the Committee had an opportunity to engage with the University stakeholders such as the unions, the student representative council (SRC), institutional forum (IF) and council.

3. Summary of the presentations

3.1 Institutional Forum (IF)

The presentation was made by Ms M Silo: Chairperson and highlighted the following: The University’s IF was elected into office in September 2017 and its main role was to advise The council on all issues affecting the University. The other focus areas of the IF included: implementation of the Higher Education Act,1997 (Act No. 101 of 1997) and national policies of higher education; race and gender policies; selection of candidates for senior management positions and fostering an institutional culture which promotes transformation, social cohesion and respect of fundamental human rights.

The IF has been engaging with the institution in a number of areas which included; review of the higher education legislative/policy framework, transformation, student matters and filling of vacancies. The IF acknowledged the support it received from the DHET in particular the strengthening of its guiding principles.

With regard to the transformation at the University, the IF played a critical role in the appointment of a Director for Transformation at the University. The IF has also been engaging with the institution on the decolonisation of education. In so far as student matters are concerned, the IF was seriously concerned about the violent student protests at the University in 2017. The IF engaged with students and other University stakeholders to find a way forward to stabilise the institution.

In relation to the filling of vacancies, the IF had developed a guide on the appointment of senior managers and recommended that IF should be consulted on all senior appointments irrespective of the term of appointment. The IF had a project plan for the next three years and this plan would focus on future areas of work such as; policy reviews, transformation, dealing with management issues and other staff related matters.

3.2 Student Representative Council (SRC)

The presentation was made by Mr P Mncamase: President and highlighted the following: The SRC began the presentation by indicating that it was an interim structure since the University did not conduct SRC elections in 2017 due to the volatile situation at the University. The SRC was of the view that the merger of Cape Technikon and Peninsula Technikon to establish CPUT has not been successful.

The SRC expressed a concern about the culture of the institution. They elaborated that students needed to protest in order for management to respond to their grievances and this had become a culture. Moreover, the relationship between students and staff at the University was a concern. Certain staff members at the University viewed the SRC as a threat and were not willing to assist students with their requests.

The SRC expressed a concern with regard to the changing of the minimum requirements for students to become part of the SRC. The management sets a minimum pass rate of 65 percent for students to be eligible to be part of the SRC, an act viewed by the SRC as sabotage to potential student leaders.

In so far as students’ matters are concerned, the SRC expressed a concern about the shortage of student accommodation at the University. The SRC indicated that some of the University residences were in a bad state and were not conducive to living and learning. The poor maintenance work and inadequate security at the residences were frustrating students. Moreover, there was corruption in the provision of residence spaces for students. Some of the residential occupants paid R5 000 to residence staff in order to secure rooms. However, there was inadequate action taken by management to investigate the irregularities in the awarding of residential spaces.

The SRC blamed management for engaging with non-recognized structures for the instabilities at the University. As a result, students did not have faith in the SRC as a legitimate body that could represent their interests. The absence of a permanent Vice-Chancellor at the University also compounded the situation. The SRC indicated that it was concerned about the destruction of the much needed University facilities during the student protests in 2017. As a result, the University had a shortage of learning facilities and exam venues due to the damage to infrastructure.

The SRC expressed a concern about the non-payment of refunds due to the students for the 2017 academic year. Other eligible students that had applied for NSFAS in 2017 did not get financial assistance. The SRC was also concerned about the alleged racism at the Wellington Campus.

3.3 National Education and Health Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU)

The presentation was made by Mr S Nkwana: Chairperson and highlighted the following: The union expressed a concern with regard to the poor leadership at the University. The union indicated that management could not interpret conflict and deal with it immediately. Moreover, the main sources of conflict between management and workers at the University were: management reneging from agreements; grievances being treated based on colour and management negotiating with new non-recognised structures.

The union expressed a concern about the poor implementation of the University’s employment equity policy, whereby white male dominance was still high at senior management posts and the high employment of foreign nationals at junior level positions.

The union was of the view that institutional autonomy of universities should be removed as it was against the implementation of government policies. Moreover, the casualization of workers in the higher education sector should be addressed and full in-sourcing should be implemented at all universities. The union supported the call for a national bargaining forum for higher education with a particular focus on harmonization of the conditions of services of employees in the higher education sector.

The union proposed for a national summit to look into how universities are operating and to also look into the funding model for higher education given the ongoing decline in university subsidies. The union requested the Committee to look into the skills audit of the University and for the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to investigate the alleged racism at the University as did at the University of South Africa (UNISA). The union indicated that the University was establishing a second Commission of Inquiry (Yekiso Commission) and its findings should be made available to all stakeholders of the University including the Committee.

3.4 Cape Peninsula University Employees Union (CPUEU)

The presentation was made by Ms C Stevens and Mr C Abner: Secretary and highlighted the following: The union indicated that it was the biggest union in terms of the number of members at the University. The union expressed a concern about the abuse of fixed term contracts by the University whereby certain workers had been employed for close to 10 years on a fixed term contract. The union said that the staff on fixed term contract did not enjoy similar employment benefits as compared to permanent employees and they were not allowed to join trade unions. These workers were also exploited due to their job insecurities as line managers placed greater demands on them as compared to permanent workers. The union proposed for a minimum use of fixed term contracts in line with the provisions of the law.

The union expressed a concern about the University’s practice of making unilateral changes to employment conditions and the functionality of business units without meaningful consultation with workers. The union called for more consultation to be undertaken by management on the restructuring of the University’s business units.

The union indicated that it had identified irregularities in the process of developing, reporting on and implementation of the University’s Employment Equity (EE) plan and this was brought to the attention of management. The union also informed the Department of Labour about its concerns and the Department visited the institution to investigate several key areas of non-compliance by the University. The union was concerned that the institution could be found liable for a fine of 2 percent of its turnover per section by contravening the various sections of the Employment Equity Act (Act No. 55 of 1998).

The union expressed a concern regarding the University’s health and safety measures. Moreover, certain classrooms at the University did not have functional air-conditioners which made it difficult for students and lecturers to fully participate in teaching and learning. In relation to safety, the union expressed a concern about the lack of security in residences, biometric system that was not working and students were being robbed. The theft and violent protests that had become part of the University’s culture were also a concern for the union.

The union expressed a concern about the wasteful expenditure and bad decision-making by management. The University had a number of cases that had been referred to the Labour Court due to bad decision-making. The union indicated that the part-time staff in the Business Faculty had not been paid since January 2018 and the human resource director was made aware of this concern. The University had not resolved this matter and this was frustrating the workers. The union was of the view that there was a lack of accountability and consequence management at the University.

3.5 National Tertiary Education Union

Ms M Pike: Chairperson made the presentation which highlighted the following: The union began the presentation by mentioning a number of HR directors that had been appointed by the University. In relation to recruitment and selection, the union expressed a concern about the non-compliance by management to the recruitment policies of the University and the lack of consultation with the union on these policies. As a result, the University had operated with a high number of acting positions for the most senior posts within the University for an extended period of time. The union had also raised concerns about the suitability of candidates in the acting positions.

The union expressed a concern about the suitability of the human resource implementation model, which was under scrutiny as the appointed business partners were overwhelmed and service delivery was slow. The union was of the view that some of the business partners lacked knowledge of the law and the University’s policies and the model of using business partners within the faculties should be assessed. The union was concerned that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) had become the University’s human resource base.

The union expressed a concern with regard to the manner in which management dealt with staff grievances. This contributed to the high number of grievances that were referred to the CCMA. In relation to the University’s wage bill, the union indicated that the wage bill stood at 77 percent as compared to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) prescribed 65 percent threshold. The union was concerned about the development and promotion of the internal staff members to higher positions.

The union expressed concerns with: non-completion of the job grading process; delays in the review of job descriptions; delays in the development of the remuneration policy and strategy; non-implementation of a performance related pay progression; non-implementation of a fair workload distribution model; delays in the development of a comprehensive staffing strategy; non-implementation of the 2016 wage agreement; employment of staff on fixed term contracts; inadequate consultation with the unions on the employment equity plan; health and safety violations; ineffective management of residences; assault of staff by protesting students and non-completion of their disciplinary cases; inadequate management of infrastructure development and facilities management and decision by the University to write-off student debt which cost the University R111 million which could have been recoverable from NSFAS.

 

3.6 National Public Service Workers Union

The presentation was made by Mr B Msengi and highlighted the following: The union began the presentation by indicating that there was a high level of worker abuse, exploitation and brutality at all management levels at the University. To change these conditions, the union indicated that it had declared a call for justice for all CPUT employees and students, regardless of their colour, background and political views.

The union was of the view that the University’s council lacked depth to run a diverse large institution such as CPUT. As a result, the union was in the process of engaging the current the council and the DHET to propose for the dissolution of the sitting the council and immediate reconstitution of a functional the council. The union also expressed a concern about the absence of a permanent Vice-Chancellor for the University.

The union expressed concerns about the high vacancy rate at senior management level of the institution and the number of acting individuals. Moreover, the policies in place for promotion at the University had proven to be applied discriminately. The union demanded for a fair practice throughout for staff promotion and the review of the promotion practice. It further demanded for a stop in the appointment of foreign nationals at the expense of South Africans and full integration of the former outsourced services employees into the University payroll and its benefits structure.

The union proposed the following: transformation of the University’s research activities  should  respond to the developmental needs and challenges of the African global society; business awards dine within the University campuses should  reflect the South African demographics; the University should develop programmes that affirms its vision; reinstatement of a job grading exercise of all administration staff on a three year periodic arrangement; genuine engagement with the student community through their leadership; upgrade of working stations and classroom conditions; audit of CPUT employees qualifications and legal standing of all companies doing business with the institution and the University property register to be made public and each property be declared with its market value.

3.7 Management

The presentation was made by Dr C Nhlapo: Acting Vice-Chancellor and highlighted the following: The Acting VC began the presentation by giving a brief background of CPUT. He indicated that the University had six campuses situated in Bellville, Cape Town, Granger Bay, Mowbray and Wellington. In so far as student enrolment for 2018 is concerned, the VC indicated that the University had approximately 33 820 students in 2018 against a target of 34 388. Of this total enrolment, the number of first-time entering undergraduate students for 2018 was 7 419 against the target of 9 878. In terms of gender classification, the majority of students were female at 55.6 percent as compared to their male counterparts at 44.4 percent. The majority of students at the University were Black Africans who constituted 66.8 percent of the total student population, followed by Coloureds and Whites at 25.3 percent and at 7.3 percent respectively.

In relation to the success rate for 2017, the VC indicated that the University’s success rate for undergraduate degrees was 77 percent against the target of 82 percent. Moreover, the postgraduate success rate was disappointing, at 20 percent against the target of 54 percent in 2017. The VC said that the University produced a total of 6 393 graduates against its target of 8 821 in 2017. The University also produced 16 doctoral and 92 masters graduates for 2017. 54.7 percent of graduates at the University were employed at the time of their graduation.

In relation to student bursaries, the VC indicated that the University received a total of R71 million funding benefiting 1 500 students. Moreover, the Advancement Department of the University assisted 25 post-graduate students to get R2.7 million. With regard to student accommodation, the VC indicated that the University had 9 131 students accommodated in its residence which was 29 percent of the overall student population.

3.8 Council

Subsequent to the oversight visit to CPUT, the Committee convened a meeting with the Council on 19 April 2018, as per the resolution taken on 28 March 2018 that Council should appear before the Committee in Parliament. The CPUT Council was requested to make a presentation on the current leadership instabilities, filling of vacancies, student protests, challenges of student accommodation and transformation. In addition, the Council was requested to present its response to the issues raised by the University stakeholders during the oversight visit of the Committee to the University. The Council came to Parliament and was led by its Chairperson who also made the presentation as follows:

Ms N Nojozi: Chairperson of Council began the presentation by apologising on behalf of the members of Council who could not attend the meeting of the Committee. The Chairperson informed members about the University’s ongoing 2018 Autumn Graduation Ceremonies, which began on 18 April 2018. She indicated that herself, the Registrar, the Acting VC, and other Council members were supposed to be attending the ceremony. However, they decided to honour the invitation of the Committee since it was of fundamental importance.

The Chairperson undertook to submit to the Committee a report on the resignation of the former VC which was also submitted to the Department. The Chairperson explained the complexities of voluntarism and being members of the council and the fact that Council met only on weekends to discuss institutional issues. She indicated that the Council was legislated to meet four (4) times a year, unless there are urgent issues to address. However, during the years of student protests and turmoil at the University, Council convened more meetings to deal with the situation on the campuses and to bring stability. The Chairperson expressed a concern about the proliferation of labour unions at higher education institutions. She indicated that the Committee should consider paying close attention to the unionisation of universities, which was becoming a common trend in higher education.

The Chairperson indicated it was prepared in response to the Committee’s invitation. In relation to the role of the Council, the Chairperson indicated that the Council of CPUT was established in terms of section 27 of the Higher Education Act, 1997 (Act No. 101 of 1997). 60 percent of Council members were external and the remainder were executive managers and representatives of internal constituencies. The Council members served on a voluntary basis, and were not paid a salary or board fees, but a stipend to cover their incidental expenses. With regard to leadership instability, the Chairperson indicated that it was a false narrative that the University had four Acting Vice-Chancellors within one year. Instead, there were two acting VCs appointed by Council since the former VC was put on special leave. The former VC was put on special leave in October 2016, and the disciplinary process was initiated in January 2017 and concluded in September 2017. The former VC resigned at the end of September 2017 after being found guilty of misconduct, but before the sanction was announced by the external Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee (DC).

In relation to the VC appointment process, the Chairperson indicated that the advertisement was published during the weekend of the 14 – 15 April 2018 and the process would be completed in August 2018 and the successful candidate would resume duties, earliest by September 2018, and latest by March 2019 depending on the availability. The Council has also advertised other senior management posts.

In exercising oversight over the implementation of policies by management, the Chairperson said that Council receives quarterly reports from: senior management through the VCs Report and Council Committee Reports; Senate on academic matters; advice from IF and direct reports from stakeholders once internal channels have been exhausted.

Mr. T Molaolwa: Deputy Chairperson of Council indicated that Council undertook an inspection of the student residences to determine the extent of the shortage of student housing and maintenance backlog. The Council was concerned about the shortage of student accommodation. However, due to budgetary constraints, the University had limits on its capacity to expand its student residences. The Deputy Chairperson refuted the allegations of instability at the leadership level of the University since none of the Deputy Vice-Chancellors and other senior managers had left the employ by the University.

Other Council members informed the Committee that Council was committed to restoring the academic dignity of the institution and there were ongoing engagements with the students and other stakeholders with a view to find solutions to their grievances. However, the Council was concerned about the continuous disruptions and threats from students whenever it sits for its meetings at the Bellville Campus to the extent that the Council had opted to have its meetings outside of the institution precincts to avoid disruptions. 

The Acting Vice-Chancellor, Dr C Nhlapo informed the Committee that the Minister of Science and Technology, Hon M Kubayi attended a send-off ceremony of the University’s second Nano-satellite (ZACUBE-2) on 17 April 2018 at the Bellville Campus.

4. Observations

The following formed part of the observations during the oversight visit:

4.1. Governance and management

4.1.1.    The Committee expressed a serious concern about the absence of the Chairperson of Council at the meeting. It emerged that the council held a meeting on 24 March 2018 and resolved not to make a presentation as requested by the Committee since it has an oversight role over the institution. The council also resolved to send two Executive Committee (EXCO) members to attend the meeting of the Committee. The Committee was concerned that The council failed in its duties to account to the Committee as mandated by the Higher Education Act (Act No. 101 of 1997). The Committee was of the view that the council should be invited to account to the Committee as previously requested.

4.1.2.    The Committee was of the view that the council was not discharging its fiduciary responsibilities adequately given the establishment of the second Commission of Inquiry to investigate the breakdown in relations between the University management and stakeholders as well as other instabilities at the institution. The University has also operated without a permanent Vice-Chancellor for over a year.

4.1.3.    The Committee expressed a concern about the poor relations between the University management and stakeholders. The Committee observed that the unions and management had disagreements on a number of issues that affected workers.

4.1.4.    The Committee commended the admission by the University management of corrupt activities at the institution. It further commended the commitment by the University management to root out corrupt activities and build better stakeholder relations as well as working towards ensuring the University returns to its former glory as the best University of Technology.

4.1.5.    The Committee noted that the council had not provided reasons for the suspension of the former Vice-Chancellor.

4.1.6.    The Committee expressed a concern that the University did not conduct SRC elections in 2017, and the current SRC was an interim structure. The University indicated that the volatile situation at the University in 2017 prevented it from conducting credible SRC elections and the disagreements between various political parties contesting the elections compounded the situation.

4.1.7.    The lapse in the Human Resources Management was noted with great concern.

4.2. Filling of vacancies

4.2.1.    Section 34 of the Higher Education Act, 1997, and Section 15(3)(a) and section 56 of the Institutional Statute of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology bestows the responsibility of appointing employees of a public higher education on the University by the Council. The Committee was gravely concerned that in spite of the reassurances of the Chairperson of Council, this responsibility was ineffectively carried out by the council as evidenced by the delays in the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor and a high number of acting senior and middle management positions. This had an adverse impact on the stability of the institution and staff morale.

4.2.2.    Non implementation of approved policies and agreements negotiated between labour unions and management was noted with concern.

 

4.3. Student enrolment

4.3.1.    The Committee noted with concern the low enrolment of first-time entering students at the University when the demand for higher education is high. There had been under enrolment during 2014 – 2016. The University reported that it had not investigated the causes of under enrolment of first-time entering students for 2018. 

4.4. Student protests

4.4.1.    The violent student protests and destruction of University property between 2015 - 2017 by students was condemned by the Committee. The SRC acknowledged that some of the facilities that were burnt down in 2017 were critical for teaching and learning. However, the SRC did not want to take responsibility for the destruction of the University infrastructure. They alleged that the people who burnt the University infrastructure were not students, but external forces who wanted to bring anarchy at the institution.

4.4.2.    The impact of student violent protests on the employee wellness and non-implementation of consequence management against the perpetrators of violence, as well as lack of support to victims of the alleged violence, was strongly condemned.

4.4.3.    The Committee expressed a concern about the impact of the violent protests on the image of the University and the report that the University lost three research chairs due to the inability to access the institution to conduct research.

4.5. Infrastructure, student housing and student safety

4.5.1.    Poor maintenance of the existing infrastructure and the reported poor workmanship of the newly constructed teaching and learning facilities as reported by Unions was noted with great concern given the huge investment made by the government in terms of infrastructure efficiency grant to expand access to higher education. 

4.5.2.    The University experienced a shortage of student accommodation and 29.6 percent of registered students were accommodated in University owned and private accredited residences. The Committee was of the view that the student housing shortage was not affecting CPUT only but remained an ongoing concern across higher education institutions.

4.5.3.    The Committee noted with concern the alleged corruption in the provision of student accommodation spaces at the University residences. It was alleged that some of the residences were occupied illegally by students who colluded with residence staff to obtain spaces. The Committee also noted allegations that some students paid R5 000 to obtain residence space. Management indicated that a forensic investigation would be undertaken to investigate the extent of the corrupt practices in the awarding of residential spaces.

4.5.4.    The allegations that some private accommodation providers incite students to put pressure on the University management to by-pass supply management processes to lease their residences were noted with concern.

4.5.5.    The Committee was concerned about poor safety and security and the unhygienic conditions of the student residences. The admission by the University management that students lived in an unhygienic environment due to lack of cleaning material was disconcerting.

4.6. Harmonisation of conditions of service and implementation of employment equity plan

4.6.1.    The disparities in conditions of service of employees were noted with concern since the merger of the University and disparities in conditions of service of the in-sourced employees were noted with concern.

4.6.2.    It was reported that there were part-time staff members in the Faculty of Business who had not been paid for their services since January 2018.The University management indicated that some part-time staff were permanent employees of the University who had more than one contract with the University, and the University was not prepared to pay its staff twice. Moreover, the Dean of the Business Faculty was removed due to a number of irregularities in this faculty.

4.7. Transformation

4.7.1.    The Committee noted with concern the reported allegations of racism against students at the Wellington Campus as reported by both students and Unions.

4.7.2. The slow implementation of employment equity plans and policies and the appointment of blacks and women in the senior management level was also noted.

4.8. Administration of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme

4.8.1.    It emerged that there were serious delays by students in signing loan agreement forms and schedule of particulars (LAFSOP) and this contributed to the delays by NSFAS in allocating the allowances due to students. NSFAS indicated that approximately 4 978 students had not signed their LAFSOP, which amounts to R102 million. It was reported that SRC discouraged students from signing the LAFSOPs.

 4.8.2.   The Committee was concerned about the delays by the University in submitting students’ results to NSFAS to enable it to make funding decisions. NSFAS reported that it results for 103 students and this challenge was caused by inadequate integration in the information technology (IT) systems of the University and NSFAS.

4.9. Establishment of a Central Bargaining Forum

4.9.1.    The Union has urged for the establishment of a Central Bargaining Forum for the higher education sector to address issues of common interests affecting the employees, including conditions of services.

4.10 Observations of the Committee on the meeting with the CPUT Council on 19 April 2018

The CPUT Council agreed to meet with the Committee on 19 April 2018 in Parliament.

The following formed part of the key observations:

 

1. The Committee expressed its gratitude to the Council for honouring the invitation of the Committee given that it was clashing with the 2018 Autumn Graduation.
2. The Committee was of the view that the presentation of Council did not address some of the serious allegations and concerns raised by stakeholders during the oversight visit.
3. The poor relations between the University stakeholders and Council were once again noted as a concern. Moreover, the inadequate dialogue between the Council and stakeholders to resolve their differences remained a challenge.
4. The Committee expressed a serious concern that the University did not utilise R126 million infrastructure and efficiency grant (IEG) allocation from the Department earmarked for the construction of new residences. Furthermore, the Department allocated an additional R60 million (IEG) in 2017/18 on condition that the University accepted support from the Department in properly procuring and implementing its student housing projects. However, the University did not comply with this directive.
5. The destruction of much needed learning facilities during the student protests in 2017 was noted as a serious concern. The Committee also questioned the student representative council’s (SRC) blame shift that the destruction was done by external forces, and urged Council to ensure that those involved in the destruction of university property were held accountable.
6. The decision taken by students in 2018 not to sign the loan agreement forms and schedule of particulars (LAFSOP) was noted as a serious concern. The Committee enquired on whether management communicated with the students about the implications of not signing the LAFSOP, which delayed the processing of students’ allowances.
7. The Committee reiterated its concern about the delays in the harmonization of the conditions of service of employees, in particular the employees that were recently in-sourced.
8. The Committee was of the view that members of Council should have been aware of their duties prior accepting the appointment to serve on the University Council. Furthermore, it was not good to blame voluntarism for the poor attendance of Council meetings.
9. The Committee expressed a concern about the implementation of the University’s employment equity plan and the numerous complaints from stakeholders concerning the appointment of foreign academics at the expense of black South African academics, as well as the slow pace of transformation.
10. Written response to the Committee

There were a number of questions that Council could not respond to at the meeting with the Committee on 19 April 2018. Subsequently, Council submitted a written response to questions raised by the Committee:

1. With regard to the steps taken to ensure that those who were involved in the destruction of the University’s infrastructure are held accountable, management was instructed to charge the implicated students accordingly, and 16 students have been charged and 10 expelled to date.
2. In relation to the plans in place to restore the poor relations between the University stakeholders and management, Council has approved the stakeholder mapping and implementation plan by management. Regular meetings have been scheduled between management and the stakeholders. Council is also setting up the Commission of Inquiry to investigate the breakdown in the relationship between the University stakeholders.
3. In relation to the leadership development programmes to train SRC members, Council resolved that management, through the student affairs division, implement awareness programmes to conscientise students about peaceful protests and the value of public property and the rights of others.
4. With regard to the reasons for not utilizing the infrastructure efficiency grant (R126 million) provided by the Department for the expansion of student residences, the University had not yet acquired the land to build in Wellington. The University is still pursuing the acquisition of land. The City of Cape Town Municipality has not yet issued the permission for the upgrade for bulk services.
5. In relation to the processing of outstanding claims, the University has 2 705 unsigned loan agreement forms / schedule of particulars (LAFSOP) and is working together with NSFAS to make contact with students. The University is also engaging with the SRC and other student leadership structures to encourage students to sign the outstanding LAFSOP.
6. In so far as harmonization of the conditions of service of the insourced workers are concerned, numerous meetings have been held with unions and a decision was taken to formalize the discussion under the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) oversight to prevent possible disruptions.
7. With regard to the recurring student protests, the 2015 and 2016 protests were spearheaded by the #FeesMustFall campaign. However, in 2017, students wanted to influence the procurement processes or to trade with the University and the demand for insourcing.
8. In relation to the implementation of the employment equity plan, the new Employment Equity Officer will commence with his/her duties on 1 June 2018, and the University will commence with the new employment equity plan to ensure comprehensive consultations and the establishment of a new EE that will incorporate the input of all stakeholders.
9. In relation to the CPUT merger, the bulk of the academic departments have been consolidated across the relevant campuses, in accordance with the master plan on consolidation academic departments and faculties.

5. Summary

The 2018 academic year commenced smoothly at the University and there were no incidents of student protests at any of the six campuses of the University. However, the University did not meet its target of admitting first-time entering (FTEN) students besides the call to universities to increase access to learning, especially for the poor. The University could not explain as to why it continually failed to achieve its target for FTENs.

In so far as the issue of student accommodation is concerned, the University acknowledged its shortcomings in the provision of student accommodation spaces. Irregularities in the awarding of residence spaces would be investigated to determine the extent of the corruption and the number of illegal occupants at the residences.

The Committee acknowledged that the University had great potential to be among the top institutions of higher learning in the country. The growing research outputs and innovation systems supported this assertion. However, the continued absence of a permanent Vice-Chancellor and the delays in the filling of senior management posts threatened the stability of the institution. Nevertheless, the University undertook to prioritise the filling of the vacant VC post and other senior management posts. Moreover, the interim VC had also been instrumental in leading the institution in the absence of a permanent VC.

6. Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the Minister of Higher Education and Training consider the following:

6.1.       The Committee is of the view that the council was not discharging its fiduciary responsibilities, given the magnitude of the challenges experienced and leadership instability. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Minister intervenes urgently to address the current challenges. In addition, the Committee also recommends that Department strengthens its oversight function over the Cape Peninsula University of Technology to ensure the core mandate of the University is not compromised.

6.2.       The Department and the University should report quarterly to the Committee on progress made towards restoring stability at the Institution.

6.3.       The Committee should further engage with the Department and the Universities South Africa (USAf) on the outstanding matters on the mergers of universities and this was expressed by most merged universities.

6.4.       The Union has urged for the establishment of a Central Bargaining Forum for the higher education sector to address issues of common interests affecting the employees, including conditions of services. The Department of Higher Education and Training, should engage USAf and the Public Service Commission and Registrar of Department of Labour and Unions to explore the feasibility of establishing such a structure.

6.5.       The Committee noted with concern the low enrolment target of the first-time entering students at the University when the demand for higher education is so high. The University should investigate the causes of under enrolment of the first-entering students as this would adversely impact on the achievement of the overall headcount enrolment numbers set in the 2014 – 2019 Medium-Term Strategic Framework.

6.6.       Unions at all the universities were concerned that universities have insourced the workers who previously worked for private companies but had not harmonized. Universities should address the disparities in the conditions of service of the in-sourced employees.

6.7.       The University should prioritise the filling of the Vice-Chancellor position and other critical post to bring stability at the institution.

6.8.       The University should establish a stakeholder forum wherein students and staff grievances could be resolved.

6.9.       The University should encourage all the students who had not yet signed their LAFSOP to urgently sign them so that NSFAS can process the outstanding payments due to them. The University should expedite a process to submit student results to NSFAS to enable it to make funding decisions.

6.10.     Safety and security measures are non-negotiable. A proper system should be put in place to ensure student safety in the residences. Students should adhere to safety measures put in place by the University at the residences, and vandalism of biometric access should be strongly condemned by management and student leadership.

6.11      The Department should ensure that policies and strategies put in place by the universities to address transformation and redress in the appointment at senior management and other middle management levels are implemented and monitored by both management and the council.

Report to be considered.