John Hinchcliff: Minister plans leash on polytechs

Opinion

The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill aims to restructure the governance of Polytechnic Councils. However, in attempting to solve some problems, it demeans crucial strengths of these institutions.

The proposed structural reforms include:

* Polytechnic Councils reduced to eight members from between 12 and 20.

* Membership to include four ministerial appointees (four-year terms), one local community representative, (two to four-year term), the CEO, and one academic staff appointed by the polytech council "on the nomination of Academic Board" and one student representative (one-year terms).

* Abolishing representation from employers, employees, professional bodies, the administrative staff, and other communities.

* Maori representation is recommended without an appointment strategy.

* The Minister will appoint the chair and deputy chair, and is empowered to remove appointed or elected members, combine councils and academic boards, require "specialist help" for councils, and appoint a crown manager to assume council functions.

Polytechnic problems include limited finances, issues pertaining to people, contextual difficulties in small rural institutions, and overlapping relationships between governance and management.

Such problems will not be solved by the proposed reforms. Whether there are eight or 18 members, in a polytechnic or Parliament or within any agency, there will be weaknesses. This bill aims to save an institution incapable of governing itself. Self-evidently, a bankrupt or failing institution cannot deliver and Government should intervene.

Perhaps, occasionally, an amalgamation should be required enabling greater outreach with shared systems and enhanced economies of scale. And perhaps small polytechnics need only eight members.

But why disempower many effective people throughout 20 polytechnics, who bring invaluable community perspectives, because of smaller "at risk" polytechnics?

"Decisive and responsible decision making" depends upon the competence of council and chief executive - not on legislation reducing council numbers.

Councillors have responsibility for careful stewardship, administrative effectiveness and accountability. Mechanisms exist at present for ensuring this stewardship.

Especially with the four existing ministerial appointees, it would be unusual to find a council not well endowed with business and financial acumen and experience.

This bill diminishes the ethos and effectiveness of councils in several ways. It cauterises our precious tradition of democratic participation inherited over hundreds of years. Democracy needs constant replenishment and is safeguarded by personal engagement within community organisations.

The polytechnic council serves the wider community. It should not be marginalised and lose the strategic value of broad perspective.

To respect diversity and balance the various pressures, especially when allocating scarce resources, polytechnic councils need representatives from the wider community.

The democratic idealism of a council being close to the community is negated by the proposed structure. With the minister's handpicked team controlling half the votes and a ministerially appointed chair holding the casting vote, the spirit of democratic liberalism is seriously demeaned. And the vagaries of political fortune will subject councils to some triennial uncertainty.

A polytechnic leadership is enhanced by the chief executive's ability to empower and trust employees.

This trust is nurtured by personal engagement, not imposed by politically controlled administrations.

Similarly, councillors are more likely to engage together as a sharing community if not constrained by a political agenda.

And a politically controlled, efficiency-driven, tunnel-visioned ethos would not inspire polytechnic staff. They thrive when empowered by the purpose of serving the students' learning aspirations and the prospects of community development.

The mere hint of political interference that curtailed freedom of thought and expression would create significant disaffection among staff and students.

A challenge for all public sector organisations is to balance governance and management. Simplistically, the governing council approves the vision and major policies, holds the chief executive to account and monitors progress. The CEO and management administer the institution.

But, in reality, it is a complex interface. Council members advise on crucial management issues and policy implementation.

An appropriate Amendment Bill would require all CEOs and councillors be given practical advice and training on how governance and management should interact.

This bill infers our political masters do not trust councils and administrators. A council should be free from a ministerial leash and entrusted to empower the CEO to lead.

An effective council respects the contexts, perspectives and best interests of the wider community and nurtures trust between the polytechnics and politicians.

* Dr John Hinchcliff was CEO of ATI-AIT-AUT for 20 years, an Auckland City councillor and served on seven primary, secondary and tertiary councils.