Enhancing Institutional Governance Beyond the Society’s Act of 1860 V.Thanikachalam, B.E., M.Tech., Ph.D., M.S., FIE. FIGS vthani2025@gmail.com
Governance of Autonomous Institutes in India • In 1950s and 1960s the Government of India established many regional institutes, and national institutes in technical education in cooperation with various advanced countries. • The governance of these institutes are based on the Society’s Act of 1860 • These institutes have been provided with academic, administrative and financial autonomy, • They are governed by a Board of Governors constituted by the government. • This act provides only basic governance but the Board has to take all needed initiatives • The government supersedes the Boards in policy formulation, implementation , evaluation and development • Many decisions of the Board would be subjected to further analysis by the government • There is a need for critically evaluating the Society’s Act itself, since, many institutes do not achieve excellence
Problems in the Implementation of the Development Projects • In many autonomous situations, the Board is not aware of the sanctioned projects • There are many deviations in the implementation of the projects • The CEOs take all decisions and keep the Board in dark • The CEOs would deviate all the rules and the norms of the good governance • They submit the limited policies which suit them but the governance is based on the Society’s Act of 1860 • Hence, there is a need for the enlarged role of the Board
Governing Board • The Board has to strategically plan the programs, activities and projects to meet the growing needs of the technical education • But there are many conflicts between the government representative and the Chairman of the Board
The Society’s Act of 1860 • Most of the autonomous institutes in India are registered under the Society’s Act of 1860 • The decisions are to be taken by the Society • The Government appoints the Chairman of
the Society
• Under the Society, the Board of Governors is constituted • The members of the Board represent the MHRD, integrated finance of MHRD, regional states, AICTE, University, faculty members, industry, and two other expert members who are nominated based on their expertise. • The CEO is the Secretary of the Board of Governors • The Board prescribes the qualification and experience of the faculty or adopt that of AICTE
The Board of Governors • Memorandum of Administration (MOA)is to be registered under the Society’s Act where all members signed • CEO (Director/ Dean/Principal) is the Secretary of the Board • Chairman is one of the key persons who conducts the Board Meetings • Board is responsible for all planning and development • The Service and Recruitment Rule is to be approved by the Board
Existing Committees of the Board • Finance Committee • Approves the budget • Examines the Expenditure -Members: 1. Chairman of the Board 2. Finance Member from the Integrated Finance of MHRD 3. Secretary-CEO • Building Committee • Approves the construction of New Buildings and the maintenance/ repair of the existing buildings - Members: 1. Chairman of the Board 2. Superintendent Engineer of CPWD 3. Secretary-CEO
Academic Council • CEO is the Chairman of the Council • All HODs are members • Two other faculty members are appointed on rotation • Three external members represent the industry, higher education and the university • Senior most Professor is to be nominated as the Secretary by the Chairman (CEO) as per MoA Activities of the Council: • Review all the academic activities like Long-term Programs and Short-term Courses, Examination results, Seminars, Workshops, Conferences, Externally funded projects, and any other matter as desired by the CEO
Limitations of the Present Committees of the Board of Governors • Limited focus on the Strategic Planning of Institutional activities • No scrutiny of expenditure as per the approval of the budget • Showing Nelson’s eye on the growing vacancies • No focus on the excellence & institutional growth • No focus on programs on emerging technology • No focus on Industry-Institute-Government Partnership • No focus on globalization of educational programs • The CEO determines the agenda to suit his needs • Many problems are NOT presented to the Board • Even the policies and new programs suggested by the ministry are NOT placed before the Board
Global Practices • Nave and Van Vught (1994) brought out a model termed as “Autonomy with Accountability” for institutional governance and management in higher education • Paul Lingenfelter, Richard Novak and Richard Legon suggested that: Implementation of regulatory laws to improve the performance of public institutions • Use of Citizen Governing Boards established by statute • Direct election or appointment and/or confirmation of Board members • Statewide Governing Boards
Desired Role of the Boards of University Governance ( Phyllis Palmieno, 2006) • Engage in Strategic Planning • Assess the stated vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the Institute • Support and monitor the effectiveness of implementation of new interdisciplinary programs in emerging technology • Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of various programs • Provide fiscal oversight and ensure fiscal integrity • Recruit and orient new trustees (Board Members) • Prepare for succession in Board Leadership • Assess the President (CEO) of the university • Ensure academic integrity and student learning • Ensure university’s public image and standing
Indian Parliamentary Committees • Work done by the Indian Parliament is not only varied in nature, but also highly considerable in nature • The system of departmentally related standing committees was instituted in 1993 • A good deal of its business is transacted by 24 standing committees • They examine the bills that are referred to them • They also examine the expenditure plans of all the ministries in the Union Budget • They examine the working of the departments and various schemes of the government • Ad hoc committees are appointed for specific purposes • Standing committees take up all important issues
University Committees and Their Responsibilities (Phyllis Palmiero, 2006, Director, Institute of Effective Governance)
Committee
Responsibility
Academic Affairs Committee
Ensuring the academic integrity of the university
Finance Committee
Ensuring adequate financial controls & monitoring
Audit Committee
Assessing university risk & monitoring university activities Vs. Board Policies
Governance Committee
Assessing the Board’s needs in terms of trustees
Executive Committee
Developing agendas with input from all members & acting on emergency issues
Ad-hoc Committee
Presidential selection and assessment & other needed committees
Australian Government’s Reform Package
• Quality • Equity • Diversity • Sustainability
Suggestions of NPIU on the Governance • Primary accountabilities • Key attributes of governing bodies • Effectiveness and performance review of governing bodies • Regulatory compliance
Expected Overall Outcome • Integrity in the appointment of the faculty and CEO • Accountability • Contribution to growing economy • Transparency in all institutional decision making processes • Institutional development and reaching excellence • Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Programs and Projects • Outstanding Knowledge and Human Capital
Cases Considered • A set of 24 cases were identified from various autonomous institutes which are under the Society’s Act of 1860 and governed by the Board of Governors • The deviations are collected and classified as follows: - CEO is not faithfully implementing the guidelines of the Board/ Government -
He unilaterally took decisions to close down various departments
- He did not follow the recruitment rules - He did not communicate the major policy decisions of the government to the Board - He did not follow the norms and standards for implementing the construction activities - He deputed his favored coteries to overseas programs • There is no scrutiny on his deviations
Legal maxim (Justice Dhyani)
• Where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy
Stop the Jungle Raj The Board has to stop the jungle raj through focused committees of the Board of Governors to ensure excellence
The Role of the Board of Governors • Constitute various committees and judge the performance • Prevent their recurrence • Build a responsive administration • Evaluate the progress • Ensure excellence • Ensure equity
Suggested Committees based on the Analysis of the Cases Committee
Major Role
Academic Affairs Committee
Review the academic affairs , planning new innovative programs , evaluate the achievement & suggest improvement
Financial Control, Purchase & Audit Committee
Review the use of the sanctioned budget, purchases & audit the expenditure
Faculty Recruitment and Internal Governance Committee
Recruit faculty and staff based on the service and recruitment rules to meet the needs of the institute
Institutional Governance Committee
Develop Institutional strategic plan, faculty development, & performance appraisal
Ad Hoc Committee
Review of emerging development issues, and resolving them
Learning from the global and parliament practices
Constitute Responsible focused Committees to guide and support the growth
Summary • The research addressed the vulnerabilities in the institutional administration through a set of selected cases • Build response capacity through five committees which are very consistent with the global practice - Academic Affairs Committee - Financial Control, Purchase and Audit Committee - Faculty Recruitment and Internal Governance Committee - Ad Hoc Committee • These committees would improve the Academic Performance and contribute to the economy through knowledge and human capital
Thank you for your participation,
Your Questions, Please