The slate is not clean at University College Cork

national | rights, freedoms and repression | news report Tuesday March 06, 2007 19:14 by Stuart

A clean sweep or déjà vu, again?

The new president of University College Cork, Dr Michael Murphy, has been quick off the blocks to establish a rapport with the media and reassure his audience that the new presidency, executive and governing body can be trusted going forward. But what about the past, what about the very serious allegations raised against UCC and what about the repercussions of the Malone Report? Any attempt to sweep the many outstanding matters at UCC under the carpet is likely to further inflame the situation

Trouble in Toytown

The Irish Times today (06/03/2007) firmly declares that all eyes are on the future and that there will be no judgement on the past, saying that the new president "acknowledges how UCC has been damaged by the recurring controversies". Dr Murphy is quoted as having concern about UCC's reputation being harmed "by having some of our internal debates taking place outside UCC - I would hope that the natural controversy that you must have in any university will be conducted within UCC." There are better phrasings to emphasise that the damage to UCC has been caused by wrongdoing, not by public exposure.

On the one hand this could indicate a determination to ensure that all disputes are adequately handled by internal procedures and that staff will not be forced to call on external agencies. Dr Murphy says he is "committed to ensure all views on all matters can be dealt with internally... My job is to strengthen the internal process." This commitment was evidenced during his first stint at the Governing Body on the 6th February when he quietly ushered in a new Higher Education Authority 'Code of Governance for Irish Universities' and established a Working Group on Governance. He outlined an induction programme for governors and the need to reform the Governing Body Committee Structure, the University Statutes and the University management structures and processes. He also called for an overhaul of the woefully poor communication and interactions between the Governing Body and the Academic Council, the University Management Group, the University staff and the external world.

On the other hand, he says that he "expects loyalty from staff and students to their colleagues", without having first established the trust and authority necessary to command that loyalty. He is "anxious to signal that his appointment represents a clean slate, a break with the rancour of the past for everyone in UCC." This expands on Dr Murphy's statement in the UCC Express (27 February 2007) that "I would hope that we will have processes in place over the coming year to make sure that our internal battles stay internal from now on". This could cynically be interpreted as a threat to enforce a code of loyalty and silence, because it is not accompanied by tangible commitments to deal with past abuses of power at UCC.

In the Irish Times of 2 March 2007, Dr Murphy said that "it was now time to move on and look to the future". In the UCC Express he summed up his intentions to act on Mr Malone's Report by saying "that GB here would consider it, and then pass it to the HEA and then obviously recommendations that are made have to be acted on. Now, in fact, I took the position at the last GB that a lot of things should be acted on during the honeymoon period. I would suspect that what Malone would do is validate the reasons for doing the right thing for the right reason."

Other UCC officials have echoed this stated intent to move forward without taking responsibility for the past. One stated "We as a Governing Body are moving forward and leading the way for a new era in UCC. The new president has taken that initiative and is leading us into the future and while lessons can be taken from the past. I do think its best to look forward now and improve in any way we can." Another stated "I think giving the new Governing Body and President a chance would be good. What is past is past and very little can be done about it now."

The Malone Report

The outcome of the Malone Report has been widely published and discussed in the media already. Sean Flynn of the Irish Times began with a report of a leaked favourable summary of the report prepared by someone in UCC under the headline "Inquiry clears ex-UCC head of corruption" saying "An inquiry into allegations levelled against the former University College Cork (UCC) president Gerry Wrixon has found no evidence of corruption or breaches of the law". (Irish Times, 02/02/2007).

This was a very different take to that by the Irish Examiner some days later, who reported on the complete report headlined "Report highlights mistrust and animosity at UCC" saying "structural changes at UCC, prompted by Prof Wrixon, may have been introduced too quickly to accommodate all the college's key staff - there was truth in some of the allegations probed - a number of allegations were correct but that all of them were of a minor nature - however, when considered collectively, some of them give a very poor impression of the university" while noting that there was no corruption and the mismanagement investigated was not sufficiently serious to warrant the statutory appointment of a Visitor. (Irish Examiner 03/02/2007).

Matters took a much more serious twist when Mary Raftery of the Irish Times reported under the headline "Minister's blind eye in UCC row" on UCC's effective control over the investigation process, UCC's establishment of the remit, UCC's selection of the investigator and UCC's limitation on the matters covered by the investigation. Her article states that "a number of the allegations put forward by Professor Clarke are correct both in substance and fact …. collectively they do not convey a good impression and they certainly highlight a lack of awareness and, in some cases, a disregard for process and procedures. The number of instances where short cuts have been taken, where procedures have not been used or have not worked is a matter of concern." She also quoted "serious deficiencies in pursuing these reforms, particularly the failure to win the hearts and minds of the staff. He criticises the lack of leadership from the governing body, describing it as incapable of acting in a collegial manner". (Irish Times, Thursday 08/02/2007). The references to an abject failure of the Department of Education and the Higher Education Authority to ensure adequate standards of probity in public life infuriated Gerry O'Sullivan of the HEA into a petulant letter to the Irish Times (Letters, 16/02/2007) complaining about "the wider issue as to whether due process and the public interest are best served by this kind of public comment on a leaked report", neglecting that public disclosure was effected by a modified version of the report leaked by elements within the university in the first place.

Mary Raftery summed up by saying that UCC's appointment of the process to investigate its own wrongdoing was "both dangerous and damaging. It creates the unpleasant precedent of allowing public bodies under investigation to have an unhealthily large say in how and by whom they are to be scrutinised. It also sends a message that legal powers are not required for such a process."

Many would wholeheartedly agree with Mr O'Sullivan that the HEA must now ensure compliance with "its role in ensuring that there are strong, clear and open mechanisms of oversight and accountability in universities". This must start with an objective, transparent and accountable reaction to the Malone Report and all the other outstanding allegations about University College Cork. A muted agreement is echoed by the Governing Body minutes recognition of "the necessity for a review of the communication and interactions framework between the Governing Body and Academic Council, the University Management Group, University staff and the external world" and "the need to review University management structures and processes".

Cleaning the slate

It might suit UCC's new administration to claim that all of these issues are just so much water under the bridge, or (with an ironic twist of injustice) to say that all of this evil-doing was directly attributable to bad old Wrixon, who is now history. The senior administration staff have changed, but the new incumbents must address the clear and undisputed wrongdoing of their predecessors. UCC remains the same legal entity with the same legal liabilities and the same unresolved issues, which this executive is responsible for resolving.

The slate is not clean. A judgement must be delivered on the past. That judgement must be objective, transparent and accountable in order to earn the loyalty Dr Murphy demands.

Further reading ….
Eyes on the future rather than a judgment of the past http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/education/2007/0306/11....html
In pursuit of excellence: In his first interview as President, Dr Michael Murphy discusses the college's future http://www.ucc.ie/en/SIN/Communications/UCCExpress/Expr...n.pdf
Inquiry clears ex-UCC head of corruption http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0202/1170....html
Report highlights ‘mistrust and animosity’ at UCC http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2007/02/03/story24...3.asp
Minister's blind eye in UCC row http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2007/0208/1170....html
Row at University College Cork, by Gerry O'Sullivan, Head of Information at the HEA http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2007/0216/inde....html
More article links http://www.geocities.com/stuartdneilson/UCC_Reference.htm

…. and those allegations

It is worth revisiting the allegations made by Professor Clarke and others over past years. These include:

DISHONESTY: University spokespeople have claimed on numerous occasions that allegations about UCC's conduct have been examined and discounted by the Governing Body, the Higher Education Authority and the Department of Education and Science, but HEA chief executive Tom Boland wrote "I can confirm that the HEA has not carried out an inquiry into the allegations and any reports to the contrary are incorrect"; The university has claimed that investigators of bullying / harassment complaints "are senior, experienced, have previously found against alleged bullies, and have no personal attachment" yet there is no evidence that any case has ever been upheld, investigators have directly conflicts of interest and have been personally accused of (and settled in confidence) cases of bullying / harassment; A UCC spokesperson claimed that the university had chosen to cancel its insurance against litigation in 2004 after assessing the cost implications whereas President Wrixon stated to the PAC "Insurance cover is no longer available to us", Deputy Burton "Why has such cover been refused? Was it because the level of claims against the university was deemed to be high?", Professor Wrixon "Yes"; President Wrixon confirmed to the HEA on 8/3/2004 that he was "not a professor" and to the High Court on 13/1/05 that he was a professor at UCC appointed before 1997; President Wrixon told the PAC that UCC incurred legal costs over staff disputed of 125,000 per year, whereas this has been estimated to be an eighth of the real value, which may run (including settlements and other costs) into more than 10 million over his presidency and has been widely reported in the media at 3.3 million euro; President Wrixon claimed at the PAC hearing that "We have one major ongoing legal case which has been covered by our insurance policy" whereas the actual number is very much higher than one.

GOVERNMENT BY DIKTAT: There were breaches of procedure, the autonomy of the Governing Body was over-ruled by the President, the Chairman and nonmembers; Vital information was refused to Governing Body members.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND APPOINTMENTS: One person (Joe Gantly) was simultaneously associated with UCC as an employee, a Governing Body member, member of the Audit Committee, venture capitalist, chair of the Restructuring Steering Group and a stakeholding beneficiary of UCC business dealings; Failure to adhere to requirements for fair and open appointment and promotion procedures; Absence of evidence of claimed qualification by staff; False claims of academic qualifications.

THE DEFICIT: The Auditor Mr Purcell stated that the unfunded capital deficit amounted to 21.7 million euro at the end of September 2002, that it had doubled to 42 million euro by November 2004 and that UCC's capital debt is equal to the combined capital debts of all the other Irish universities (PAC Dec 2005); UCC has reported officially to the HEA that current debts exceed 100 million euro but that this is partially discounted by expected (but as yet unearned) income from fee-paying students in medicine.

FINANCIAL ISSUES: Various unanswered questions about the deficit and management of the pension fund; The Victoria Lodge student apartments contract; A 160,000 euro restrospective "donation" to the Glucksman Gallery; Consultants fees and duties; An apartment provided for the president's "use" in breach of public sector guidelines; Approval for the establishment of the Tyndall Institute.

LITIGATION EXPENSES: In addition to the 3.3 or 10 or however many million in legal fees and settlements, former president Professor Mortell was threatened with legal action; Three staff have alleged bullying by senior UCC management; and unknown number of additional cases are in train.

BULLYING: UCC has refused to enumerate the number of complaints of bullying / harassment, how many were upheld, how much has been expended on legal fees, staff replacement and settlements, how many staff take stress-related sick leave, nor even to confirm whether UCC ever upheld a complaint of bullying / harassment; Unlawful procedures (in Fanning v. University College Cork, June 2005 the judgement declared that UCC breached the law and its own statutes in a number of ways, and acted ultra vires); People (including President Wrixon, Professor Hyland and Professor Perry) who have been accused of bullying, and in some cases settled in confidence, have been appointed to investigate bullying cases and to the university's welfare and equality committee with responsibility for administering bullying policy.