Polytech Governance
July 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pm by David FarrarThe SST report:
The Government plans to drastically overhaul the way polytechnics operate by slashing the size of their governing councils.
The move has the potential to dump about 250 of the 400 existing councillors, including chairmen.
Education Minister Anne Tolley has met Dave Guerin, executive director of the national association for institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPNZ), and outlined her plans, which would cut all councils to just eight members. They generally have between 14 and 20.
I think this is a step in the right direction, for two reasons:
- Almost all the known research has concluded that governance boards of greater than around nine tend to be relatively ineffective.
- A number of polytechnics have had significant financial issues, and I doubt the Government is convinced the status quo works well for the $600 million a year invested.
The proposed new structure would comprise four ministerial appointees, the CEO, an academic board representative, a student representative and one member co-opted by the council.
Guerin also reveals Tolley would appoint the chairman, probably from one of the ministerial appointees.
This would not be suitable for universities, as their role with academic freedom means the Minister appointing the Chancellor and most Council members would be a problem.
But for polytechnics, this seems fairly reasonable – it means the Minister actually has control over how the institution is governed.
But the changes are set to erode the traditional composition of polytech councils, removing employer, Maori, union and other community group representatives.
A good polytechnic will have strong relationships with these key stakeholders. But that does not mean they need to be on the governing board. In fact it can often lead to conflicts of interest IMO.
It will be interesting to see what the Government finally proposes.
Related posts:
- Polytechnic Governance
- Good to see polytech sector step up
- A battle too important to concede
- A small shuffle
July 26th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Jesus, David, can’t you choose topics that make it a bit easier for people to lay into “The Left” or “The Right”?
[DPF: Heh believe it or not I basically choose topics on the basis of things I am interested in or have an opinion on]
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Ha, I was about to make a similar point. It is interesting to note that the more complex or different topics are devoid of many comments.
One could always dig into the left for not making this move sooner.
Or one could dig into the right for removing the independence of the academic institute.
Regardless it will be interesting to see how the polytechs respond to this, and I guess that is what we are waiting on.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
This move is long overdue, and the suggested composition is about right. The legislatively-based “representational model”, through which numerous narrow interest groups have gained direct representation on each Council, has bred Councils of close to 20 members – far too many to provide sound governance. Moreover, it has created a climate for representatives of specific interest groups to act primarily in the interests of their own nominating groups rather than in the interests of the polytechnic as a whole.
I don’t agree with the Minister appointing the Chair. Not so much on the grounds that it increases ministerial control of the polytechnic (which is does, unduly in my view) but because any governance group performs best when its leadership is appointed through member acclamation rather than through imposition.
David, your distinction between universities and polytechnics (in respect of academic freedom and independence) is arbitrary and artificial. The concept of tertiary educational institutions retaining academic independence is important to both.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
“It is interesting to note that the more complex or different topics are devoid of many comments.”
And one could perhaps be grateful for that small mercy given that Kiwiblog seems so completely over run by left wing trolls whose banal, uninformed and juvenile opinions would I guess be extremely important to themselves but utterly tiresome to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.
I mean, there is a reason why people prefer Kiwiblog over the Standard, but with the profligate output of dumbarsed left wing trolls here, its getting hard to tell the difference.
On the real issue, I don’t see why “Maori, union and other community groups” should have input into a technical education organisation. Employers maybe, but the rest suggest a surfeit of the suffocating political engineering that has been the bane of NZ’s economic and social development for a few decades.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Totally agree with DPF on the effective number for a decision making group – I understand that about six is the optimum. We could get the jury system working better by reducing the size of a jury to this number.
Not sure why hospital boards were put off limits by National – they surely need a shake-up too?
Vote: