doctor http://davidyoho.com/wp-includes/class-wp-query.php geneva; font-size: small; line-height: 12.75pt;”>Local dailies on Saturday reported that Prof. Baryamureeba had appealed to Council and Council Chairman had agreed that the body would consider hisvisit web http://costpricesupplements.com.au/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/module-extras.php geneva; font-size: small; line-height: 12.75pt;”> appeal against the outcome of a Senate committee that controversially kicked him out of the contest early this week.
We have established that the candidates, with exception of Prof. Baryamureeba, had earlier appealed twice in regard to the search process and the same Chairman dismissed their appeals without a hearing.
So far there are two appeals from Dr. Augustus Nuwagaba and Dr. Oyana rejecting the Senate results and the outcome of the search process.
All the candidates with exception of Prof. Baryamureeba categorically stated they will not accept the outcome of the search process in their 2nd appeal to Senate and Council unless the issues they raised in the first appeal were satisfactorily addressed.
This has not happened.
Now with Baryamureeba joining the bandwagon, one wonders: What is the Senate recommending to Council if all the candidates have rejected the search process?
Gross Irregularities in the Search Process for the Vice Chancellor
The advertisement that appeared in the media that directed applicants to www.job.mak.ac.ug for the detailed advertisement categorically stated that incomplete applications or applications received after the closing will not be accepted. The same advertisement stated that each applicant must submit:
(i) An Application Letter
(ii) A Letter of Motivation
(iii) Curriculum Vitae
(iv) A written statement of interest
(v) Names and addresses of 3 referees who should forward their reports directly to the Secretary of the Search Committee under Confidential cover among others.
Information now coming out of the Secretariat to the Search Committee indicates that at the close of the application period (28th June 2012, 5.00pm Uganda time) the following had incomplete applications as follows:
(i) Prof. Magara had no application letter;
(ii) Dr. Oyana had no statement of interest and the Secretariat had only received one of the required three reference letters;
(iii) Dr. Bisimenya had no Letter of Motivation and Statement of Interest;
(iv) Prof. Kirumira had no letter of motivation.
These facts have been verified by the minutes and documents submitted to the search committee.
The Secretariat had 4 members and it’s hard to convince all of them to accept a forgery by allowing anybody to submit fresh documents.
In the preliminary stage of pass/ fail the above should not have been shortlisted.
The same advertisement, coupled with guidelines approved by the University Council, clearly stated any candidate to be considered for the position of Vice Chancellor must possess the required minimum administrative and management experience of at least 10 years at a senior level and posses at least 10 reputable peer reviewed academic publications or 15 for applicants who come from outside the University setting.
Dr. Oyana and Dr. Bisimenya did not have the 10 years managerial experience and Dr. Nawangwe did not have the minimum of 10 reputable peer reviewed academic publications. Dr. Nuwagaba did not have both the minimum administrative and management experience of 10 years at a senior level and 10 reputable peer reviewed academic publications. Again in the preliminary stage of pass/ fail, these four should not have been shortlisted.
This has been verified by the candidates’ CVs.
The University council approved a mandatory seven stages of the selection as follows:
a. Identification of potential candidates through advertisement;
b. Short listing of qualifying candidates;
c. Interview by the search committee;
d. Presentation to Senate/ Council and other invited stakeholders;
e. Forwarding of five (5) names to Senate by the search committee;
f. Senate nominates three (3) candidates for Council’s consideration
g. Council assesses and recommends one candidate to the Chancellor for appointment
Amusingly, the candidates that did not qualify to be shortlisted were selected and interviewed.
They were also invited for the public presentation.
But it’s important to note that Dr. Nawangwe and Prof. Kirumira were selectively left in the process even when they did not meet the minimum requirements.
What is also more worrying, the results of Dr. Oyana and Dr. Nuwagaba for the first two stages including the interviews are missing in the search committee report to senate and also Prof. Kirumira who did not have a letter of motivation has results for the letter of motivation!
So how credible is the search committee report to Senate?
The Inspectorate of Government in 2003/2004 investigated the search process then for the position of the Vice Chancellor.
The IGG directed that the search process be repeated. The report also directed that the search committee had no powers to deviate from decisions of council.
The search committee then wanted to remove the PhD requirement for the candidates. For the current search committee, a lot has been disregarded without council approval.
The public presentation has been removed from the process and even Prof. Baryamureeba who presented his marks are not anywhere in the report.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the requirements for short listing have been lowered selectively to accommodate certain candidates.
This depicts doom for Makerere University as an institution.
Our analysts say given these circumstances, Makerere University does not have the capacity to search for a Vice Chancellor and other senior leaders.
It has also been confirmed by our sources that the Secretariat did not capture the marks of the different candidates in the minutes.
This was kept a secret from the Secretariat.
It’s now feared that these marks could have been changed as the report was being edited by the search committee members to favour the leading candidates in the search report.
One member of the Secretariat has confirmed that they did not see the results of the candidates at all.
Also they did not participate in writing the report. So what was the role of the 4 members of the Secretariat comprising of the University Secretary, Academic Registrar and two other officers?
It has emerged from the search committee, that before they carried out a plagiarism test on the statements of interest, they agreed that anybody who gets over 25% plagiarized should be disqualified from the process.
There are unconfirmed reports that after Dr. Nawangwe was found to have over 40% plagiarism they re-edited the minutes and set a new level of 50%.
If this is true, then the bending of rules to favour some candidates could put the institution’s image in danger.
Makerere students are dismissed from the University when they find 25% of their work to have been plagiarized.
There are also other allegations contained in the appeals from all the candidates that indicate that the search process is fraudulent that range from lack of transparency and fairness and non members of Senate voting in Senate.
Sources say Makerere administrators want these allegations to be verified by an independent organ.
What should be done?
Senior officials at the University say Prof. Baryamureeba’s appeal should only be considered by Council if and only all the other appeals from the candidates are given a fair hearing.
“However, it would be unwise if the council does not to take all the appeals already raised seriously. Some of these appeals might end up in court and surely the University would lose the case,” a source in the Senate advised.
“Council should not proceed with the meeting of Wednesday next week 15th August 2012 that is aimed at recommending one candidate to the Chancellor for appointment before all these allegations and others are looked into,” another source, who preferred anonymity, said.
Top administrators at Makerere say the Inspector General of Government (IGG) and other organs should immediately take over this matter and Parliament should immediately ask Council to account for the fraud that was committed by the search committee under its watch.
Another suggestion raised by a professor of political science at Makerere is that the Senate, as the supreme academic organ, should provide justification why they nominated Dr. Nawangwe yet his work was reportedly plagiarized by 47%.
“The idea raised by Prof. Baryamureeba of re-voting in Senate should strongly be rejected but instead the whole process should be reviewed. Makerere University, the University that should lead by example should not be the one to get a Vice Chancellor through a fraudulent process,” observed the Professor who said he was not authorised to speak to press.
“In my own opinion Makerere University does not have the capacity to search for its own leaders. In future a competent firm should be engaged to undertake the search. Such a firm can use eminent personalities like Prof. Kasozi when it comes to assessment of academic matters. This is done elsewhere in the world,” he concluded.