University boards – Visibility, efficiency and accountability

University boards serve as key agents of higher education governance in many countries, including Ethiopia, and are frequently conceived of as a buffer between the state and higher education institutions.

The largest role in external governance of the higher education sector in Ethiopia is taken by the Ministry of Education, now the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

The various strategic roles and functions of the ministry outlined in the Higher Education Proclamation (HEP 2009) ensure the implementation of national policy and strategy on higher education, the determination and issuance of standards, approval and implementation of the strategic plans of public institutions, and the facilitation of coordination among universities and other external entities.

The internal governance of universities, on the other hand, is entrusted to governing and advisory bodies, academic units, administrative and technical support units, and other relevant offices (HEP 2009).

In Ethiopia university boards have served as a key component of higher education governance for decades and appear to be situated somewhere between the ministry and the internal governance structures of the university.

The university board is currently designated “the supreme governing body of the institution” with a plethora of responsibilities extending from monitoring to supervising the overall operations of the university (HEP 2009).

Despite their importance in the achievement of effective and transparent university governance, boards seem to be the least reformed, researched and accountable of all university structures.

Historical precedents

Strikingly, boards set up during the last six decades under three different governments bear close resemblance to each other, both in terms of numbers of members and composition.

When the University College of Addis Ababa (UCAA), the first institution of higher learning in the country, was established in 1950 the board of governors consisted of six members appointed by the emperor and the UCAA president.

The only exception was an elected student representative who was supposed to join the board as an additional member when the growing alumni body numbered 200. The first board members were recruited from the ministries of justice, defence, education, and foreign affairs.

The board of the Haile Selassie I University (formerly UCAA, and currently Addis Ababa University), established in 1961, assumed all the powers vested in the UCAA board but membership was augmented to eight members, three of whom were drawn from the ministries of education, agriculture and public health.

When the Derg (the Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia) assumed power in 1974, a Higher Education Commission with a higher education council took over most of the responsibilities previously assigned to the university board. The higher education council, chaired by the education minister, had as its members the ministers of health, agriculture and settlement, industry, and the commissioners of planning, science and technology, as well as five persons appointed by the government.

After the new government assumed power in 1991, the Higher Education Proclamation (2003) reinstituted the board with similar powers as in the past. However, the power to designate the chairperson for the board was assigned to the Ministry of Education.

The proclamation did not specify the members of the board, stating only that “representatives from the Regional Government, representatives of the beneficiaries of the products and services of the institution, notable personalities as well as members from the management organs of the public institution” (Article 36.2) would be appointed.

The second Higher Education Proclamation (2009) did not introduce any fundamental changes in the way in which university boards were composed.

Government influence

The board is accountable to the ministry and is composed of seven voting members. In addition to the virtual lack of representation from internal stakeholders, the board is heavily dominated by government officials with little room left for other external stakeholders.

Many view the representation of government officials as useful for facilitating institutional success through access to enhanced government and community support, resources and influence.

The heavy representation by government is despite the promise in the legislation that members will be selected for their “exceptional knowledge, experience and commitment that enable them to contribute to the attainment of the mission of the institution and the objectives of higher education” (HEP 2009).

If we look at the composition of the board, the chair and three voting members are appointed by the minister. The remaining three are nominated by the university president in consultation with the University Council and the Senate, but still these need to be approved by the minister. The ministry has full authority to reform and change the board (HEP 2009, Article 47.5) whenever it deems it necessary.

Deficiencies

Although the composition of boards is expected to be based on merit and gender equity, most boards are still dominated by men. University boards have been criticized for lack of clarity of purpose, micro-management, poor understanding of role, misunderstanding of the unique nature of the university, and in some cases having limited capacity to meet obligations.

These deficiencies are partly influenced by the nomination process which does not necessarily consider the personal qualities, professional attributes and commitment of members. These are further compounded by lack of effort to fill gaps in awareness and training.

A recent discussion paper prepared by the Ministry of Education (2018) as an input to the Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap identifies that there remains much to be desired from many university boards. One is the lack of communication between board members and the university community.

The report also indicates that most boards are weak at developing their own work plans and following up on university operations and strategic matters. The level of leadership provided by boards in solving institutional problems is in most cases found to be meagre or non-existent.

The lack of comprehensive and timely follow-up by boards is known to have caused further exacerbation of problems. Specific institutional matters such as programme expansion, research strategy and university-industry relations are at times run contrary to government plans when boards fail to provide the necessary direction and follow-up.

The need for reform

While the benefits of a board are not in contention, most university boards in Ethiopia are far from meeting many of the expectations of internal and external stakeholders in their current form.

It is high time the sector looked at reforming existing boards in the interest of shoring up their capacities, combating their deficiencies, and creating a vibrant, knowledgeable and informed body that can lend further assistance and direction to the fledgling higher education sector where governance continues to be a critical factor for success.

Areas for improvement may include broadening the membership of the board, improving the quality and capacity of its members, establishing clear lines of accountability and, importantly, creating sufficient distance between the ministry and the board so as to strengthen the intermediary role it can play between the interests of the government and that of universities.

Wondwosen Tamrat is associate professor and founding president of St Mary’s University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He is a collaborating scholar of the Program for Research on Private Higher Education, headquartered at the State University of New York at Albany, United States. He coordinates the private higher education sub-cluster set up for the realisation of the Africa Union’s Continental Education Strategy for Africa. He may be reached at preswond@smuc.edu.et or wondwosentamrat@gmail.com.