Not long ago, the college was being hailed for the improvement in its standards and facilities. Speaking to prospective students, everyone seems to want to go to IPAM as there is a perception of fair play both in admission and during the course of study. My problem at this point is that in previous times, we have been told certain things which now seem at odds with the current press comment.
It is well known that when Bart-Williams took over IPAM as the Acting Director, it was on an unpaid basis – a situation which continued for 9 months. We also know that the IPAM benefits package is funded from short course income and that all staff, be they drivers, cleaners or lecturers, benefit from this. I have spoken to junior staffs who confirm that they do receive their benefits as well. It is therefore not clear whether these are the same benefits package that some say should go back to the old formula where the lecturer takes most of the benefit. Some disgruntled staff mentioned that the former Director did change the basis of allocation of short course revenues which reduced the allocation to lecturers but which now included all staff including junior staffs who continue to receive substantial sums. Reverting back to the old system means that the junior staff will be excluded from the college benefits system.
IPAM is the wealthiest of the colleges with a bank balance which was around Le 2 billion at the time the former Director left. In fact, by some calculation it should be nearer Le 3 billion this year but we are still told that the ‘women’ managing the institution have mismanaged it. The university authorities need to explain. An insider at the University mentioned that this money might be used to bailout the rest of the university but this money was earmarked for the new campus. This brings me to another complaint which is that IPAM is too commercial and private sector biased. I guess that this is how IPAM got rich – this is the money the university now wants to use.
There are also rumours about the recruitment policy of IPAM. I am told that the system which operated was that as long as the college was responsible for the payment of the staff, then colleges were free to employ. My source at the University further confirms that the University has received a list of the current staff from IPAM indicating their qualifications and date of employment. We hope that the university will publish this information fully so that we can form a judgement on whether staffs employed were qualified or otherwise. I am told that many of the new staff have already indicated their wish to leave the institution as these are professional people who do not depend on IPAM to make a living unlike some of the people who are complaining.
Sources complain that Bart-Williams tried to move too fast without consultation. On further questioning, it became clear that some people resented the manner in which he decided that he did not want to continue in the job as Director. I am told that he simply called the Vice Chancellor and told him that he no longer wished to do the job; this is strange especially as he had assured the President that he will remain in post at least until the end of his contract. In fact, I am told that he never withdrew his resignation submitted in January 2008 but agreed to give the university time to find a suitable replacement. I am also told that even when on leave, he refused to accept his benefit entitlement. Even we tried to call him, he said that he was very busy.
IPAM and the University have to ensure the institution does not slide back to the bad old days. The institution is still the leading institution in Sierra Leone for many people and the national interest must be served.
By Micheal Charles
ADVERTISEMENT