administration University of Puerto Rico, in the voice of the rectors of the Río Piedras, Cayey and Mayagüez campuses, I believe that the university reform proposal, promoted in the Senate, must go through several amendments to fit the fiscal reality that the institution is experiencing.
The measure, listed as Senate Bill 172, was tabled by the senator Jose Vargas Vidot on 4 February and its content has been running for several years by a multisectoral committee made up of representatives of teachers and students, among others.
In an open virtual table with different environments, the university administration explained its statements about what they understand to be components, insofar as they have to go through changes, given that, for example, it eliminates the power to make decisions from the president of the institution and the rectors and transfers it to the University Council.
As a result of such components, according to the rector of the Mayagüez University Campus (RUM), Agustín Rullán Toro, the current administrative area would only ratify the strategic plans and the UPR budget presented by the University Council.
“The project, as it was presented … I can tell you that the philosophical basis from which it starts are principles that are all very good. He talks about depoliticization, decentralization, autonomy, sound administration and many things that I think are philosophically important principles, “said Rector Mayaguez in the virtual presentation.
“However, the details that lead to the implementation of these philosophical principles, in the way it is proposed, we believe will be very problematic for the University,” he added.
With this in mind, Rullán Toro understands that the legislation must go through “serious changes” before the legislature can approve it.
Some of the concerns raised by the university administration also include the transfer of executive powers to the deliberative bodies, which they argued as a proposal that would add a bureaucratic layer to the management of the UPR.
“The decisions will require the participation of these bodies, their taking to the vote, possibly the presence in the commissions and we have a serious concern that this will paralyze the University. A university that is itself extremely bureaucratic and we will add a serious layer of bureaucracy to move it and make timely decisions, ”he said.
The reform will affect accreditation
As university reform is being written, the main concern of the presentation is how the measure could affect the UPR accreditation process, he said. Jenniffer Alicea Castillo, Associate Vice President of Accreditation and Evaluation.
The issue of accreditation was one that drew a lot of attention to the institution, after it was in danger of losing it in early 2019, given that UPR did not provide the information requested by the Commission for Accreditation of Middle States for Higher Education (MSCHE).
However, in June of that year, UPR managed to retain it after the delivery of documentation and several visits made by MSCHE representatives to campuses.
According to Alicea Castillo, the reform completely eliminates compliance requirements, especially in line with the UPR governance standard.
“This standard is very clear in the way it sets out the duties of the chief executive of each accredited institution and also sets out the functions and obligations of that governing body of the university. Any institution wishing to be accredited and remain so must comply with these standards to the end. In this case, the standard I mentioned is directly affected “, the official explained.
“It is a very important issue that all this reform, the amendments, whatever you want to present because of the serious concerns of the university community, to always be seen through the objective of accreditation and is something that does not consider this project,” he added. . .
The presentation of the administration also included the participation of the rector of the Río Piedras campus, Luis A. Ferrao Delgado and the rector of the Cayey unit, Luis Tapia Maldonado.
It also argues that to the extent that there is no evidence that the university community or MSCHE has been consulted.