University of Zululand Audit Report by CHE and Department response, with Minister

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed the new Minister of High Education and Training, Ms Naledi Pandor, to the meeting and allowed Members of the Committee an opportunity to raise pertinent points or questions to the Minister. She informed the Committee of the President’s announcement that a special unit of investigation would be established to investigate events that had unfolded at the Tshwane South Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) College and promised the Minister that the Committee would support the investigation.  She asked that the Minister keep the Committee updated on the matter. She indicated the Committee’s displeasure with the situation, saying that learning had to be the preoccupation of students, not parties. She stated that the law had to take its course, where necessary.  The Auditor-General had pointed out issues with the Tshwane South TVET College and so the Committee received quarterly updates on the affairs of the College from the Department.

Questions and comments to the Minister

Ms J Kilian (ANC) said that the Department had to ensure that the additional money coming into the budget was spent appropriately, the through-put rate of students was improved and that it added value to the education sector. She asked for assurance from the Minister that the money would be used to strengthen the country’s skills base and to ensure that young people could take their place in the South African economy. The Department had a responsibility to see that the money worked for the country. She asked the Minister for the assurance that it would not be business as usual and that the Minister would ensure that the country had the right skills. Graduates had a responsibility to plough back into society. The trend of skilled graduates leaving South Africa after benefitting from the country’s institutions was a personal concern for her.  The practice was not bad in itself, but the country needed the graduates to plough back into the economy, at least for the number of years that they had benefitted as students.

Dr B Bozzoli (DA) welcomed the Minister to her portfolio, expressing her gratitude at having such as experienced person as Minister. She was concerned about the struggling universities such as the University of Zululand and Walter Sisulu.  She said that troubled universities needed more than just money being pumped into them. Secondly, the long-term sustainability of the student funding model was questionable. The Department had seen a significant increase in revenue, but Dr Bozzoli noted that the number of students on the financial aid schemes would likely increase in years to come. Currently only 90 000 students had applied for funding, but that number would increase exponentially in the years to come as additional first year students added to the numbers each year.  That would place strain on the Department’s ability to meet the growing demands of students expecting to receive government support. She was concerned that the funding model was not sustainable. She asked the Minister if the Department could do a presentation for the Committee on a ten-year plan as to how the funding model would be rolled out and how much it would cost.

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) said that the current unrest was about the inefficiencies within the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) which needed to be addressed. Secondly, she expressed concern about community colleges that were not achieving the intended outcomes and needed to be brought up to date.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) said he was concerned about the state of community colleges and that up to 63% of school entrants did not leave school with a matric certificate and lacked the opportunities to develop their skills further. He was concerned about the National Senior Certificate (Vocational). The National Accredited Technical Education Diploma (NATED) syllabi at colleges were completely outdated and failed to address the needs of the job market. The reversal of the autonomy and self-governance at TVET colleges, as originally introduced by the Minister in 1992, had limited the ability of the colleges to recruit people with the necessary skill sets. Unless finality was reached on staff establishments, the Department would be unable to attract high-quality employees to work in TVET colleges.  He said that NSFAS had become a cash cow for TVET colleges as it provided a guaranteed income even while put-through rates had been dismal.  There was no consequence for the heads of institutions. He fears that that trend might manifest in universities as well and damage the academic merit of South Africa’s tertiary institutions as they focussed on getting money from NSFAS.

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) informed the Minister that the Committee had recently visited colleges and universities.  He said that the Department had managed the new funding very well. The Department needed to consider how it would manage the budget given the increase in funds. Hence the Department should look into the operation and mechanisms of NSFAS. He said that the Committee had visited tertiary institutions with the aim of making TVET’s and community colleges more attractive to students. Issues raised during those visits were funding, transport, stipends and accommodation, which had been the subject of recent strikes on campuses. He suggested that the Minister should work with the Department of Human Settlements on the issue of accommodation. The Department had to find a system whereby they could allocate funds more effectively to meet the needs of those who truly needed transport and accommodation as opposed to those to whom it was largely a matter of convenience.

The Chairperson added that Fort Hare University was making good progress and the oversight visit had seen that improvements that have been made, although challenges still exist in matters of accommodation. She asked that the Department report back to the Committee on the issue of medical students who had studied in Cuba but faced an issue with the Department of Health in getting internships and faced job uncertainty while the government had spent a lot of money on the project. The severe backlog in certificate distribution that institutions faced has had a significant impact on the job prospects of graduates who have not yet received their certificates. She expressed concern over the inaccurate reporting of number by TVET Colleges to gain financial benefits. The Committee had found ghost students on their books as they strived to access the funding.

Minister’s response

Ms Naledi Pandor, Minister of Higher Education and Training, thanked the Committee for the welcome and for the issues raised.  She agreed with a number of the Members’ concerns. She responded that the NSFAS mandate had grown without the addition of statuary and administrative power to enforce that mandate. She recalled the predecessor to NSFAS and the fact that Prof Asmal had steered the legislation for NSFAS through Parliament. The model needed to be entirely redesigned. It had not been reshaped over the years to respond to the complicated task assigned to it. She agreed with Dr Bozzoli that funding for poor students should not fall solely on public funds. The government will need to create more partnerships both nationally and internationally to support the funding system. The needs of South Africa could not be met on its own and many more students should be sent out into the international domain and there should be an improvement of what institutions in South Africa offered.  TVET’s and Community Colleges should not become quasi-schools but should offer a different and unique set of skills and opportunities. The Community Colleges should allow for upskilling linked to job opportunities rather than simply diploma acquisition. She assured the Committee that the Department would crack down on financial maladministration and corruption as she personally hated corruption, dishonesty and a lack of integrity and she would be particularly nasty should such a situation arise. The Department would continue to provide support to TVET colleges to improve their administrative and financial systems and staff administration. She noted that institutional autonomy was important but could cause collapse if the appropriate support and managerial capacity was not provided. A balance had to be found between autonomy and execution of mandate.  That required increased capacity from the Department’s side. She spoke of how she was giving a lecture in Holland when she had got the call to say that she was being moved to Higher Education and Training. She recognised that the Department had changed significantly and so she had made a resolution to listen first.  She concluded by saying that she was going to spend sufficient time listening to various sectors of the higher education arena to gain a better understanding of how the Department had changed and determine the best way forward. She expressed her appreciation for the advice of the Committee Members.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister for her attendance, especially as she had excused herself from Cabinet to listen to them. She noted that the Committee had almost full attendance.  One party had to replace a Member who had left. She introduced the Committee Secretary, Anele Kabingese, and other Committee staff to the Minister.

The Chairperson requested the Chairperson of the Centre for Higher Education to introduce his team and to make his presentation.

Presentation on University of Zululand Audit by the Centre for Higher Education

Prof Themba Mosia, Chairperson: Centre for Higher Education (CHE), welcomed the Minister, stating how pleased he was to have her back in the Ministry.  Prof John Mubangizi, Chairperson: Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) and Prof Narend Baijnath, CEO accompanied Prof Mosia.

 

The Minister left the meeting to return to Cabinet.

 

Prof Mosia explained that the special audit on the University of Zululand had been executed in mid-2017 at the request of the then Minister. The full report had been sent to the Committee. Four areas had received commendations which signalled areas of strength within the university. However, 17 areas of concern were identified as requiring attention. Several findings made by the 2010 HEQC audit had not been addressed, which highlighted the necessity of a new improvement plan.

 

The following points of commendation were made about the University of Zululand:

˗ there was a committed leadership team, albeit inexperienced

˗ progress had been made towards meeting the Administrator’s recommendations on strategic financial management

˗ assistance had been provided to many staff in the completion of PhD’s

˗ the Council and its committees had demonstrated understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the changing higher education landscape, although that was in respect of a report by the university management and had not been verified.

 

Prof Mosia noted that following the 2010 HEQC audit, an assessor was appointed and subsequently the Minister appointed an administrator. However, in 2015 the audit was terminated due to prolonged managerial instability and a lack of implementation.  In 2017, Minister Nzimande had requested a special audit of the University. That audit showed that the University of Zululand had 17 168 students at the time, of whom 1 730 were postgraduate students, an increase from 900 in 2010. The University had an ambitious and detailed operational plan and had agreed to meet reporting requirements to the Department. Reports showed that the University had experienced a positive cashflow in 2014 and 2015.

 

Key recommendations made to the university management were:

˗ the induction of new Council and Management members: gender-sensitive selection

˗ annual reviews of the performance of Council members and Committees

˗ attention was to be paid to physical planning and infrastructure development to ensure that the environment was conducive to teaching, learning and research

˗ ensuring that good governance mechanisms were functioning properly and regularly monitored

˗ address staff housing issues for those who lived far away and to improve HR strategies and policies

˗ ensure the recruitment of appropriate staff and the retention of staff

˗ ensure that the university had harmonious labour relations

˗ improve risk assessment and planning as a comprehensive approach as it was lacking

˗ enhance the university’s reputation.

 

Prof John Mubangizi, Chairperson: Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC), presented an assessment of the university’s current state of governance and the university’s strategy and outlined six priority areas that the university had included in its strategic plan.  He mentioned that the university had implemented academic system improvements by installing new graduation system software in 2016 and had rolled out online registration in 2017. However, despite those improvements the university still faced significant reputational damage due to reports of degrees-for-sale and tampering with official University records. He said that the panel found evidence that this had taken place and been dealt with by the University. Maximising the use of facilities and developing appropriate teaching and learning strategies at the Richard’s Bay Campus was vital to the progress of the university.

 

Prof Narend Baijnath, CEO: Council on Higher Education, said that the dysfunctionality of the University had been a great concern for decades. The university was one of the poorest in the country, students came from poor, rural families and often under-resourced schools.  He said that the university’s counselling services were severely stretched. Safety remained an area of concern. He noted the troubled relations between the university management, students and workers. The panel recommended that UNIZULU reviewed its approach to trade union recognition.  The university was situated in a particularly violent part of the province and though students were safe on campus with campus security, they faced many dangers once they left the campus. The university should work with the community to create a safe environment and provide transport services to students off campus.

 

Prof Mosia said that CHE would require regular and detailed reports to follow up on the implementations of the recommendations. CHE would undertake site visits to verify reports. The institution would be given one year to demonstrate measurable progress. The panel recommended that Section 42 of the Higher Education Act be invoked to allow for direct intervention by the Department in dealing with more immediate concerns outlined in the presentation.

Discussion

Ms Killian said that though the Committee had been engaging with institutions on the issues for years, the situation at UNIZULU remained quite severe. Some students had been accused of damaging property, labour relations had broken down and no studies were taking place at the university. Those issues warranted immediate intervention. She offered her support for the call to invoke Section 42 of the Higher Education Act and for the Minister to intervene. She asked what steps had been taken against those who had maladministered funds at the university. The institution depended on public financing and she asked if the Department was aware of any budgetary provisions that were being made to allocate funds to programmes such as the development of student housing at the Richards’ Bay campus.

She said that if institutional plans were not written up as implementation plans they would not materialise. The lack of a risk register at the University was concerning and she asked whether the CHE report was not being too soft on the important issues. Funds could not be properly managed without adequate risk assessment and planning. She asked whether there were further investigations into why union membership numbers had dropped so dramatically. The CHE report appeared to show that the university management did not fully understand the nature of its work, as revealed in the lack of action. She stressed that the issue demanded immediate attention.

Dr Bozzoli noted the importance of the CHE and the HEQC as independent monitors. Those entities had to be critical when commenting on the state of institutions to both maintain university autonomy by regulating how they perform and thereby avoiding the need for departmental interference. The CHE report was uncritical in that it focused on the needs, plans and structures of the university but did not go into depth about the challenges the institution faced. The report also did not address the issues from a student viewpoint and the awful living and study conditions.  Though certain reputational issues had been addressed, there were many issues which remained damaging to the university’s image, such as staff housing, union relations, SRC relations, etc.

She pointed out that universities like UNIZULU and Walter Sisulu University had been developed within a homeland context and had been seen as central to the economies of the homelands.  However, since the end of the homeland policy, universities had lost the rationale for their existence. There was an argument to be made for why those universities should be closed or moved closer to stronger economic hubs within the region. The report mentioned that the fences at the university residences had been knocked down by criminal elements and squatters who had wanted to gain access to the terrain. She said that leaving the fences down encouraged more criminality and asked why the CHE report made no mention of rebuilding the them.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) noted the argument made by Dr Bozzoli but disagreed with her, saying that though the universities were built to serve the Bantustan policies, they could be used as an opportunity to develop local people and communities. Poor and underdeveloped areas could not be abandoned in favour of urban areas, because a vast portion of South Africans lived in rural areas and those communities needed to be developed to overcome urban-rural inequality.

He expressed concern about the certificates-for-sale and the effect that had had on the quality of graduates that leave the university. What consequences had been faced by individuals who had sold certificates?  He encouraged the Department to find ways of removing those elements from the education system.

Mr Kekana asked why the report did not pay more attention to the roles and responsibilities of the Vice-Chancellor and her performance. During the site visits to the campus, splinter groups of students had chased other students away from the meeting, with the help of police and the Vice-Chancellor. He raised concerns about the lack of focus on the division within the student body itself.

Ms Mchunu noted that the UNIZULU atmosphere was very polarized, which impeded the quality of the report’s observations and recommendations. The Committee had requested an investigation into the Vice-Chancellor’s fitness for the role but that had not been addressed in the report. She did, however, note that such a request might go beyond the scope of what the audit was seeking to uncover. The report did not adequately reflect all the issues the institution was facing.

Ms Mchunu mentioned the R11 million which had gone missing within the University system. The perceived maladministration and mismanagement has increased the mistrust and negative image of the University. She agreed with Mr Kekana that the University could benefit the development of rural communities and young people and so should not be closed but improved. She also reiterated the concern over degrees being sold and the lack of focus on the consequences that perpetrators had to face. She expressed her agreement with Ms Killian in the need for immediate intervention at UNIZULU.

The Chairperson echoed the sentiments of other Members. She asked the CHE to read the brief to the Committee to clarify the scope of their report. The report was unclear about the role of the University Council to legally oversee the performance of the Vice-Chancellor. It also failed to mention the role of other structures and forums in the university which were responsible for addressing the issues outlined by the Members of the Committee.

She asked how departments could work interdepartmentally to address the external issues like crime and security. How could the responsible sectors of government be held accountable to ensure the necessary development of communities around the University? She mentioned Fort Hare as an example of how improved governance could help a university overcome some of its other challenges even in a rural area. The Minister should be given an opportunity to engage with the report. The Department would then need to decide whether intervention was needed. Immediate concerns should be separated from the CHE report so that they could be dealt with in isolation through intervention. A year would be too long to wait for those issues to be addressed.  Immediate action was required to ensure that teaching and learning resumed.

Prof Mosia acknowledged that the CHE could have been more critical but that specific criteria had guided them. It was undeniable that there were dysfunctional structures in the past, but it was difficult to determine whether they were functional when CHE was not present. He said that all those involved in degrees-for-sale incidents had been charged and dismissed, but the CHE was unable to say whether other criminal charges had been laid. More decisive action and punishment must be pursued in these cases.

He said that action needed to be taken at a higher level to ensure that public resources benefitted the students most in need. The polarisation of the student body had made the panel’s work more difficult as well. He agreed that interventions were needed.

Prof Mubangizi noted that the panel’s brief had been to assess whether the recommendations of the Administrator had been carried out and to provide a basis for the development of an institutional improvement plan. The CHE was also limited by its mandate as laid out in legislation. The panel was not mandated to determine the fitness of a Vice-Chancellor, which would require a different process. He said that the panel also was not tasked with investigating specific details around the issues UNIZULU was facing. He said that criminal elements on campuses could only be addressed through forensic investigation. The CHE did not have the resources or the mandate necessary to carry out such investigations.

He pointed out that the report made mention of deteriorating labour relations and said that the trade union membership numbers had declined due to the fractured relationship between NEHAWU and the university management. He said it would be politically, socio-economically and historically incorrect to move all institutions of higher learning to urban areas. The Department had to take the recommendations made in the report and use their policy authority to act accordingly. He was pleased to see that some Members of the Committee supported the panel’s recommendation for immediate intervention by the Department.

Prof Baijnath outlined the timeline of the special audit and noted that while the process of compiling the report had been underway, the Portfolio Committee and the Department had conducted their own site visits. Hence many of the questions that were raised by Members arose from issues that came up ex post facto. He explained that a quality audit was a blunt instrument to reveal the truth but many of the points went beyond the scope of the panel.

He responded to Ms Killian on student housing. The university had acquired significant areas of land in the Richard’s Bay area to begin construction of new accommodation but that the funds needed to complete the projects were lacking. He pointed out that the risk register was mentioned in the report. He also said that a large portion of the money lost at the University had been recovered and that that information was detailed in the footnotes of the report. The University had showed sufficient evidence that they had put administrative measures in place to avoid such a loss in future. He concluded by responding to Dr Bozzoli that the report used tempered language because it could become a public document.  However, he assured the Committee that CHE took a very hard-line when engaging with university management.

Response by the Department of Higher Education and Training

Mr Gwebinkundla Qonde, Director-General at the Department of Higher Education and Training, said the point of the audit was to determine whether the University had met the recommendations in the Administrator’s hand-over report, to see which areas required further attention and what the constraining factors were. Several aspects of the report could have gone further. The defining area of a university was research and if it did not work in that respect, it was problematic. However, the Department would examine the report further and proceed from there. He encouraged quality assurance entities to defend the country’s institutions to the benefit of society and to ensure that all parties involved were held accountable. All interested parties had to step up and ensure that accountability was enforced.

The Chairperson asked Mr Qonde about the claim that UNIZULU was closed at that time.

Mr Qonde noted that there was unrest due to discontent over student allowances, although, according to NSFAS, the funds had been distributed to the institution. He said that the problem could either be due to delays in internal distribution or because students were unhappy with the amount they had received. It was not yet clear whether the complaints were due to entitlement or real deficiencies in the system. An official had been assigned to look into the matter.

Further Discussion

Mr Kekana noted that the black rural universities had made a tremendous contribution to South African society. People had taken advantage of the opportunities offered by institutions in rural areas, such as Fort Hare.  Despite problematic universities like UNIZULU, there were institutions which had improved and had made a positive impact on the country’s development.

Mr R Mavunda (ANC) said that the poor were often perceived as beggars because they had a poor background. He agreed with Mr Kekana that universities should offer opportunities to allow poor students to better themselves. He said that the findings of the audit should merit the launch of a more comprehensive investigation. The Department should also make a greater effort to partner with other departments and entities such as SAPS to address the criminality at institutions like UNIZULU. He asked whether the National Education, Health and Allied Workers' Union (NEHAWU) was the only union operating within the UNIZULU, and if so, were all workers members of NEHAWU, or who represented and protected the interests of those who were not members?

Ms Killian said that the role of the CHE was to monitor the quality of institutions and not to provide fix-all solutions. However, it was the duty of the Department to see what was taking place in the post-school sector in South Africa and to improve its ability to manage problematic institutions, while leaving alone institutions that showed clear ability to administer both private and public funds effectively. She emphasised the need for greater private sector investment in the Higher Education sector and noted that that would not happen unless institutions could show their ability to manage public funds better. She asked whether institutional autonomy should result in more public funds being lost due to inadequate systems and administration. How could the Committee know whether students were receiving the right amounts from their institutions and how did the Department plan to provide better oversight into that process?

Dr Bozzoli said that students would benefit if the university was moved closer to a strong economy where there were businesses, jobs and opportunities. That would provide the university with better access to the police force to promote safety and to land ownership rights as opposed to building on land owned by traditional leaders. She noted that mismanagement was not a matter of autonomy as there were many non-autonomous entities within the government which mismanaged funds. Those should be addressed before government started interfering with the autonomy of universities.

Conclusion

The Chairperson suggested that the CHE took the input from Members to reflect on whether their proposals would adequately address the challenges faced by institutions like UNIZULU. She emphasised the need for speed to avoid problems spiralling out of control. The Committee would continue its oversight of UNIZULU as the Committee had not seen the necessary improvements. The method of oversight would be determined during the next term of Parliament.

The Chairperson knew that CHE had written a range of reports on other things.  She suggested that the Committee should schedule a meeting for CHE to remind Members of the recommendations that they had made to the Minister about challenges facing the entire higher education sector. She mentioned that the South African Human Rights Commission had also tabled a report which had touched on many of the points raised around the tertiary education sector. The Committee would ask SAHRC to present its report to the Members.

Mr Mosia said that the CHE had taken note of the Committee’s comments and suggestions. The CHE would meet with the Minister in the coming week to further advise her on the matter.

The Chairperson noted that the Auditor-General would be presenting the audit outcomes of the strategic plan and budget in the next week. She suggested that the Committee dealt with the strategic plan and budget after the Easter recess. Thereafter, the Committee would move to addressing the issues at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

The meeting was adjourned.