Content uploaded by Jadesola Tai Babatola
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jadesola Tai Babatola on Apr 17, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
COLLEGIATE SYSTEM AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION IN NIGERIA:
A CASE STUDY OF EKITI STATE UNIVERSITY
By
J.E.T. BABATOLA J.P.
B.A (Hons) Ado-Ekiti, M.Sc (Ibadan), FCAI, MNIM, MAUA (UK), MNUA, ACIPM, ANIE
Deputy Registrar, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti
Keyword: The University System, Collegiate System, Nigerian University, Organization and Management
in Higher Education, Funding and Control of Universities, Relationship between University officials and
Management Objectives
Abstract:
It has been observed that the organization and management of collegiate system in
Nigerian University administration is not properly situated to give room for efficiency of
purpose and the goals that it is expected to serve.1 The cause could often be traced to an
increasing demand for effective, accountable leadership and responsibility in state owned
institutions2 just as it exist in public sector organizations or the misconception and regular
demand by constituted authorities in the Universities to place premium on the centralization
of power.3 Whatever is the cause, it is obvious that a dialectical wide gap or poor
understanding exist on what collegiate system represent or intended to serve in the
University. Hence, it has not justified its purpose when applying theories of public
administration viz. inter-governmental administrative systems and decentralization to
University administration.
The chances and prospects of maintaining proper mechanism for the centralization or
decentralization of powers and in falling short of transiting powers from centralization to
over-centralization do come to the fore, since the need to situate organization behaviour and
administrative system is absent or lacking in university leadership and administration.
Hence, this paper helps to document observations and practical experience as a University
professional Administrator in the collegiate system in order to advocate reforms and suggest
solutions that can give room for better appreciation and implementation of the collegiate
system so as to reduce controversies or eliminate misconception that surrounds it.
1 Araoye, Mathew (Emeritus Professor), Provost, College of Medicine, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, May, 2014.
2 Ajayi, Alex (Chief), Former Ag. Registrar, University of Ife (now OAU) and 1st Nigerian Registrar of WAEC, Ado-
Ekiti, August, 2014.
3 Adegbite, JGO, Pioneer Registrar, Ondo State University (Now Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti), August, 2014.
Introduction:
The effective running and operational efficiency of the Collegiate System has
dwindled and fast becoming a foregone story in the effective management of important
structures in the Nigerian University system for awhile. The original intent and necessity for
collegiate system is often misconstrued and jettisoned by University Managers whose hands
are on every aspect of the University life to maximize their authority and gains, whereas the
proponents of the collegiate system are considered to be actors of bad faith, rebels or
indiscrete and divisive leaders whose goals are to usurp the powers of the Chief Executive
and Academic Officers alongside their Chief Administrative Officers in the Universities
wherever the collegiate system is conceived and adopted.
Indeed, it has become a matter of struggle for institutional heads to either work
towards eliminating the inclusion of collegiate system in their Universities or in reviewing
and whittling down the powers and relevance of its proponents. The overall implication is
that Universities nowadays are more centralized rather than operating as a decentralized
structure in the academic community. The over-centralization of university administration
on the other hand with its negative tendencies continue to promote high handedness and less
participatory process in decision making and democratization of university education.
In developing climes, misconception and conflict is often observed in the breaking-
down of institutional authorities and powers and in spreading the limits and bounds of
governing process. This is because power brokers and occupiers of political position
particularly the Chief Executives and the Management prefers a good grasp of authority and
its exercise in various government and political institutions. However, the mistakes that they
often make by holding to power as a measure of security and accountability is often in
losing the key-players and major stakeholders required to hold unto same power.4
What quickly comes to mind is either the fear of the unknown, poor spirit of
tolerance and accommodation, bad faith or lack of goodwill to share power with eminent
colleagues or the lack of organizational attributes and administrative expertise among some
leaders and managers in our University system. Otherwise, the template of power sharing
4 Kolawole, Dipo, Former Vice-Chancellor of University of Ado-Ekiti (now Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti),
addressing a Group of UNAD Alumni Stakeholders in May, 2009
and leadership coordination is faulty in the process of decentralization of powers or the
management process for decision making. Other reasons behind concentration of powers
could be need for resource control in proper management of university economy and a
centralized budget due to lack of adequate funding, fear of abuse or arbitrary reactions to
possibility of the existence of parallel or co-equal power allocation between the higher
authorities in the University and their subordinates in the Colleges/campuses.
Montesquieu had asserted that power corrupts and absolute powers corrupt
absolutely. The growth and expansion of any ideal organization should not be merely in
asserting tradition of authorities and centralization of powers, but in engaging the executives
and managers in organization interplay and discuss to share responsibilities, garner
experience and expertise. This will enable policy formulators and decision makers to have
proper understanding of the needs of various academic discipline and effectively participate
in the overall framework of the University management using the limited resources in the
organization and management to sustain the University ethos in an open, transparent and
dynamic process accessible for all stakeholders and far off the display of showmanship and
building of personal empires and legacies.
Overview of Collegiate System in World-Class Institutions
The collegiate systems in Universities or Collegiate universities are regarded as
higher education institutions that consist of and divided up into a series of colleges with
different degree of academic discipline and specialization.5 The role of these colleges varies
from one university to the other. Some of these colleges exist and operate as ‘mini
university’ within a university6 in directing the learning of students, in providing
accommodation for them and in offering pastoral (parental) care, while others maybe more
or less operating as campuses or halls of residence.7
Another equally acceptable definition of a collegiate system or universal concept of
a collegiate university describes a major University as a federal university or affiliating
university whose several colleges or higher education institutions are linked together and
5 https://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers-advice/choosing-a-university/collegiate-universities. Accessed 8th March,
2017
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
bounded as part and parcel of the main/single university with its governing authority and
functions divided between the central administration and those constituent colleges.8 It is
therefore instructive to suggest that a University system where the college is an institutional
arm with some degree of regulated independence or administrative autonomy, the college is
referred to as a Collegiate System. Such colleges are to operate in the University with
separate, distinct and autonomous administrative structure and should possess statutory
rights to determine some of their policies in taking decisions to sustain traditions relevant to
their professions or other issues that may be required in the University system.9
The committee system would remain a part and parcel of the collegiate system with
its extensive linkage to the University which it replicates in the college administration.
College administration are to retain relevant institutional arms of Units, Departments and
Faculties encompassing College structure,10 as an all inclusive entity, though not parallel or
equal to those of the mother institution (University).11 The college would exercise the
degree of powers granted to it for the purpose of specialized capacity building and semi-
independence in handling vital aspects of its institutional governance without recurrence to
the University, except as may be requires in view of its status and activities.12
A brief insight into the institutional framework and traditions of major British
Universities where collegiate system is practiced13 subsist here. This is necessary in order to
suggest a comparative analysis of the British University model of collegiate system at the
initial stages of the conceptualization of higher education in Nigeria with the remodelled
Nigerian University system using the original concept as a benchmark for practice and
tradition as affordable in Universities of British Commonwealth.
A tabularized framework is therefore presented below for ease of reference.14
8 Wikipedia, Collegiate university, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_university. Accessed 7th March, 2017
9 Babatola, J.E.T. Memo of the College Secretary on College Administration and Linkages with Faculties addressed to
all Faculty Officers in the College of Medicine, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti in July, 2014
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 https://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers-advice/choosing-a-university/collegiate-universities
14 Ibid.
S/No.
Name of selected
British Universities
University Status and Role of
the Colleges
General Observations on
Collegiate System
1
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY
One of the most famous
collegiate universities in the
world. Most undergraduate
students apply to the university
through a college. The Colleges
play a huge role in university
life. They are financially
independent from the university
and consequently have their own
unique ethos and environment.
Many of the students spend
their entire years at university
living in their college or in a
college-owned property. Much
of the social life revolves
around the colleges, as most
have their own societies and
sports teams. Each college is
also partly responsible for
teaching, with tutorials and
supervisions taking place in
college.
2
UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE
Another famous collegiate
university in the world. Most
undergraduate students apply to
the university through a college.
The Colleges play a huge role in
university life. They are
financially independent from the
university and consequently
have their own unique ethos and
environment.
Many of the students spend
their entire years in the college
or college-owned property. The
social life revolves around the
colleges as they have their own
societies and sports teams. The
college is partly responsible for
teaching, tutorials and
supervisions. For example,
King’s College, Cambridge is
known to be slightly more left-
wing and alternative, while
Caius College is more
conservative and traditional.
3
DURHAM
UNIVERSITY
The college structure is a little
bit different. Though, the
students apply to the university
through the college system, the
colleges are not financially
independent of the University
neither do they possess separate
teaching duties in the University,
except for three colleges namely:
St. Chad's College, St John's
College and Ushaw College.
The Colleges in Durham
however play an active role in
student pastoral care. Each of
them has its own unique
atmosphere.
4
LANCASTER
UNIVERSITY
The collegiate system was
watered down a little bit further.
Essentially, all students are just
members of different colleges
and live in on-campus
accommodation that is linked to
their college.
The Colleges however runs as
glorified student halls. The
students all play a strong part in
the University social lives with
their own bars and JCRs. It
would be wrong to call them
semi-independent or
autonomous (statutory) college
with decentralized or devolved
administration.
5
UNIVERSITY OF
YORK
The collegiate system was
watered down a little bit further.
Essentially, all students are just
members of different colleges
and live in on-campus
accommodation that is linked to
their college.
The Colleges however runs as
glorified student halls. The
students all play a strong part in
the University social lives with
their own bars and JCRs. It
would be wrong to call them
semi-independent or
autonomous (statutory) college
with decentralized or devolved
administration.
6
UNIVERSITY OF
KENT
The collegiate system was
watered down a little bit further.
Essentially, all students are just
members of different colleges
and live in on-campus
accommodation that is linked to
their college.
The Colleges however runs as
glorified student halls. The
students all play a strong part in
the University social lives with
their own bars and JCRs. It
would be wrong to call them
semi-independent or
autonomous (statutory) college
with decentralized or devolved
administration.
7
UNIVERSITY OF
LONDON
The University of London is a
totally different example of a
collegiate university. It exists
and runs like a federal university
comprising of twenty constituent
colleges, such as Birkbeck and
UCL in United States.
It is about the most universal
template for running a
Collegiate University or a
Collegiate system in world-
class universities of British
tradition.
All the colleges perform most of
all the duties of a University.
They are almost completely
self-governed; although some of
the colleges don’t have degree
awarding powers.
Appropriate administrative mechanism of a University in running Collegiate System
Universally acceptable administrative practice and culture are conceived on the
acronym ‘POSDCORB’ which implies PLANNING, ORGANIZING, STAFFING,
DIRECTING, COORDINATING, REPORTING and BUDGETING. Administrative
organizations on the other part is directed at facilitating efficient work relations, hitch-free
and effective work process governed by certain bureaucratic principles that exhibits a
centralized authority and hierarchically coordinated process.15 It starts from the lines of
operation to the functions of office and its relevance to the organization. Administrative
practice expects activities to be coordinated and to follow approving and reporting lines
within each group of operations through the chains of command and unity of purpose where
status and seniority interchangeably correlates.16 This is because each Staff within each arm
of administration must work together under supervision of Schedule/Reporting Officers,
Desk/Sectional/Unit Supervisors, Superior Officers, Heads of Units/ Departments/Divisions
and the Principal Officers, in order to achieve harmonious and well organized
administration.17
Administrative Officers are guided by specific regulations, conditions of service and
other rules of work activity with reference to division of labour, departmentalization and
work specialization within defined territories/directorates so as to appreciate the use of
reporting lines to harmonize administrative work process. Administrative practice requires
that where Division or Directorate (intermediate or coordinating office) exist between a
Unit (lower or specialized office) and a highest office (Department or Ministry), the
Officers of each Unit, irrespective of their status or responsibility should report through
intermediate or coordinating lines to Chief Administrative Officer on administrative issues.
A good rider is this fact is that the Registrar is the (Head of Department of Registry
in the University) and the Chief Administrative Officer of the University responsible to the
Vice-Chancellor for the administration in the various arms, except in financial matters. The
role of the Registrar as the Head of Department of the Registry does not remove the fact that
the Registry is divided into different arms for work specialization, operational activities and
coordination since the University consists of different offices.18
The Heads of Department (in charge of Administration) in each Unit or Division of
the Registry are referred to as Heads of Department within each Department or Unit, though
each of them report to the Registrar while observing and applying the governance of the
Directorate System to their work process as adopted in the case of Ekiti State University,
15 Babatola, J.E.T. Memo of the College Secretary on College Administration and Linkages with Faculties addressed to
all Faculty Officers in the College of Medicine, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti in July, 2014
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
Ado-Ekiti. For instance, the Director (Council & Gen. Admin.), Director (Academic
Affairs) and Director (Personnel) are expected under the Registrar to oversee specific
Divisions/Units and to be assisted by Administrative Officers in the Directorates who are
designated as either Heads of Departments/Units or Schedule Officers in their various beats.
Programme Secretaries and Faculty Officers in the institutional arms (Colleges, Faculties,
Schools, Directorates and Academic Programmes of the University) ordinarily reports to
Registrar as the most Senior Administrative Officer in their Faculties while assisting the
Provosts/Deans/Directors in administrative matters and in servicing the respective Boards.
None of these Administrative Officers irrespective of their posting are not independent of
the Registrar neither should they fail to report to the Head of their institutional arms in
observing the reporting lines that guides their operational activities.19
Suffice is the attendant implication where Heads of Department in administrative
units of the Registry reports through their Directors to the Registrar on administrative
matters despite their autonomy or work specialization. A pointer to this fact is replicated in
the University by extant practice as follows:
a. Deputy Registrar (Admissions) - Admissions Officer, Principal Assistant
Registrar (Senate and Academic Affairs) and Principal Assistant Registrar
(Examinations and Records) reports through Director (Academic Affairs) to the
Registrar on administrative matters.
b. Principal Assistant Registrar (General Administration); Principal Assistant
Registrar (Council Affairs) and Principal Assistant Registrar (Management
Services) reports through Director (Council Affairs) to the Registrar on
administrative matters.
c. Principal Assistant Registrar (Establishment Academic) and Principal Assistant
Registrar (Establishment Non-Teaching) reports through Director (Personnel) to
the Registrar on administrative matters.
d. Principal Assistant Registrar (Student Affairs) – Students Affairs Officer -
reports to the Registrar on administrative matters and to Vice Chancellor through
Dean (Students) on students’ matters.
19 Ibid.
e. College Secretary in the Collegiate System reports directly to the Registrar on
administrative matters and assist the Provost in College administration, while
coordinating the College administration and services.
f. Faculty Officers within the Collegiate System reports through the College
Secretary to the Registrar on administrative matters and assist their Deans in
Faculty administration and servicing of the Faculty Board.
g. Programme Secretaries and Faculty Officers outside the Collegiate System
reports directly to the Registrar on administrative matters and assist their Deans in
Faculty administration and servicing of the Faculty Board.
Administration is coordinated (unified), whether in a centralized or decentralized
atmosphere since administrative units are expected to work together, so that the centre can
hold its reins.20 If the College administration is bypassed by the Faculty administration in
the same College, then administration at the College is of no relevance and would collapse.
Another good point of reference here is to use the position of the Registrar as an example.
For instance, the Registrar serves as the Secretary of Council, Congregation and
Convocation; though the writing of minutes of such meetings is coordinated by Director
(Council Affairs) just as Director (Academic Affairs) does same in Senate, despite their
status as Other Officers of the University. The Registrar must keep the Vice-Chancellor
well informed on all university matters including secretariat services of the Governing
Council where the Pro-Chancellor is the Chairman as well as the Convocation where the
President is the Chancellor, though the Vice-Chancellor is not chairman in both cases.
In effect, the role of all Administrative Officers is to support Registrar within the
Administrative Structure and Directorate system, irrespective of their posting and to keep
their immediate superior well informed of their activities.21 Even when Committees and
panels of ad-hoc nature are set up in the University, the Registrar determines the secretary-
ship by devolving it on Administrative Staff. Hence, the role of the Registrar is enormous at
the University level. At the administrative Directorates, the Directors perform similar roles
while College Secretary will perform in same manner in the College. This also relates to the
role of Faculty Officers in coordinating departmental activities in Universities where
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
Administrative or Executive Officers are designated as Departmental Secretaries of various
academic departments in their Faculties.22
In the case of a College, the reporting line becomes more elaborate and extended due
to administrative expediency just as the Directorate system is a bridge gap between the
Registrar and the Divisions of the Registry.23 Faculty Officers posted to the College are not
only responsible to their Deans, but they are also responsible to the Registrar through the
College of Medicine that houses their Faculties as arms or schools of the College. To this
end, the only means of ensuring that the College Administration is harmonised, effective
and properly coordinated is to ensure that the Registry in the College including all its
Administrative Officers in the various Faculties are properly coordinated and informed to
work together towards meeting the needs and objectives of the College. For any avoidance
of doubt, Faculty Officers in the College are expected to assist and report to their Dean on
Faculty matters and to also assist and report to the Registrar through the College Secretary
on administrative matters. This is owing to the College status and the structure of College
administration.24
In the College, the role of College Secretary as Secretary to Court of Governors,
Finance and General Purpose Committee etc as stipulated by College Statutes, does not
imply that he/she would service meetings alone or draft the minutes. Rather, it is an
enormous responsibility that requires participation of all Administrative Staff in the College
because they are part of the college administration headed by the College Secretary (who
reports to the Provost except in financial matters).25 Faculty Officers in the College are
required to apply administrative principles to their job with respect to observing reporting
lines in their work process, because their jobs are part of the College administration which
should be properly coordinated as it affects the Faculties in the College and decision making
in the College administrative structure.26
Faculty Officers are part of College Secretariat since Faculties of the College cannot
operate in isolation of it. Hence, they cannot exist or work unilaterally without reference to
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
College Secretariat on administrative matters in the College or as autonomous despite their
co-equal status with other Faculties in the University. They will be required to assist in
servicing committees of the College in ensuring that college activities are harmonized and
do not run counter to College Statutes guiding their operations and administration.27 Hence,
the need to implore all administrative staff in the College whether in the Faculties or the
college secretariat to report to the College Secretary on college matters and participate in
the committee system of the College which will naturally affects their operational activities
and management at collegiate and University level.28
Faculty Officers in a collegiate system should understand that the nature of their
functions and activities in relation to the College is different from what Faculty Officers
could hold outside the Collegiate System. It is important for them to work out their task
through cooperation and understanding of what the collegiate system requires for
operational efficiency and effective administrative management. By implication, Faculty
Officers of the College remains part of the hub of College Administration playing
significant roles and handling specific responsibilities within the Collegiate System
particularly when required to:
a. Represent the College Secretary at meetings or functions of the College
b. Service specific ad-hoc Committee(s) of the College including assisting College
Secretariat in minutes writing, processing of notice of meetings and conveying
decisions of meetings as directed
c. Participate in meetings as members of the College Secretariat. (Note that Faculty
Officers, Programme Secretaries and selected Administrative Officers attend
University meetings i.e. Senate to assist the Registrar. They also attend such
meetings to be properly informed, guided and engaged in University policy
activity and processes as Registry Staff, even if they do not have specific functions
to carry out. By administrative practice, even when Registrar or Head of
Department in Administration serves as Secretary of a Committee, it is the
Officers assigned to a Department, Unit or Directorate that service his meetings).
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
My Practical Experience: A Case Study of Collegiate System at Ekiti State University
In 2014, I was deployed to the College of Medicine of Ekiti State University, Ado-
Ekiti as the College Secretary (while I was a Principal Assistant Registrar). The short
period of my posting to the College afforded me the opportunity of encountering the
challenges involved in the administration of the Collegiate Structure in the University
system. Indeed, I came into the realities and stark nakedness of the politics of running of
Collegiate System alongside a University system. A critical aspect of the issues involved is
the crux of management of the higher education sector wherever there are existence of any
struggle for autonomy of a College and the administrative dynamics that surrounds it.
In the case of the College of Medicine, the laws of the University envisaged the
creation of Colleges, Faculties and Institutes as may be recommended by the Senate while
the Council will give concurrence in policy matters and finance among others. Moreover,
the 2008 Statutes of Ekiti State University (EKSU) College of Medicine and the White
Paper on the Report of 2009 Visitation Panel to the University expected the College of
Medicine to exercise a degree of autonomy in the running of its affairs. However, the
enabling Laws of the University gave no specific latitude to the management of any College
to the exception of the Council, the Senate and the Principal Officers of the University.29
The powers of the College by Statutes were subsumed by Laws of the University as
all powers derived from one subset of a whole cannot be more than the whole. Any exercise
of powers without concurrence to existing laws and traditions of the University may be
invalid or invalidated to the extent of its inconsistency or inoperativeness. The implication
of the above is that all powers conferred on the Provost of the College and its Management
were subject to control and censure of the Vice-Chancellor, being the Chief Academic and
Executive Officer of the University, of which the College is a part and parcel.30
Beyond these laws and regulations exists other ideals and models for operating the
collegiate system in the Nigeria University system. These were derived from the National
Universities Commission (NUC) circulars and the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria
(MDCN) Accreditation requirements for the running of Colleges of Medicine.31 Hence, the
29 Esan, GJF (Professor), Provost, College of Medicine, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, October, 2014.
30 Akinleye, I.O., Deputy Registrar, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, November, 2015.
31 Araoye, Mathew (Emeritus Professor), Provost, College of Medicine, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, July, 2014.
persistent demand of the then Provost to reel out NUC circulars and MDCN directives for
adoption of appropriate models in the implementation of Collegiate System as existent in
some Colleges of Medicine. No doubt, the nature of medical profession and criteria
governing the management of Medical School made it imperative for a College of Medicine
to run seemingly parallel organization structure with the University for the purpose of
superintending and controlling its profession, and in providing leadership and curricular
direction like what obtains in conventional system, where powers resides in the Vice-
Chancellor and the Senate.32 Moreover, the role of Medical School as a specialized
institution compels the need for it to operate a high degree of autonomy separate from what
is experienced among other academic disciplines in the University system.
Nonetheless, the funding and administration of the Medical School were it does not
have a separate budget or line charge from the proprietor (the government) and under the
control of the Vice-Chancellor and the Council leaves much to be desired other than for the
mother institution – the University to be more instructive, assertive and interested in its
building process to ensure that who pays the piper dictates the tune.33 The struggle for
institutionalizing the ideals and injection of the realities often breeds suspicion and near
usurpation of powers, if not checked or properly addressed.
The budget and day to day needs of the College may be very high in comparison with
the University’s income and what is allocated to other Faculties in terms of the personnel
cost and overheads. The College is a major fund sucker with limited potentials for income
generation or financial returns to the University. The Ekiti State University Teaching
Hospital (EKSUTH) operates under a separate Governing Board supervised by Ekiti State
Ministry of Health and members of the College are largely EKSUTH clinicians and
consultants. The University desire to admit medical students and produce medical personnel
was a major motivation for creating the College, yet it was undesirable for the University to
lose control of the College from its grip.
As the College Secretary, I needed to find a proper direction in ensuring a hitch free
and effective College administration and the process of reporting and coordinating Registry
activities in the College. I was forced to make two separate visits to the Registrar and
32 Ibid.
33 Akinleye, I.O., Deputy Registrar, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, November, 2015.
another visit to the Director of Personnel for either clarifications or updating of my
challenges. Each situation met either resistance or less cooperative attitude and
understanding of my predicaments. The Vice-Chancellor was unapproachable too either to
state the facts of the case or to secure his personal assurances in order to avoid breaking the
ranks or by-passing the administrative hierarchy. Moreover, I was working with an elderly
man, a world-class Medical Teacher and highly influential personality who is an
EMERITUS PROFESSOR!
I was therefore at a crossroad between joining forces with the University to build a
faculty run-Collegiate system or to follow the Provost behind in building his ideal College
of Medicine in line with his propagation. To run an administrative system that secures
existing University traditions, would limit the degree of authority and autonomy exercisable
by a College as envisaged by the then College Statutes. I therefore tried initially to give
advice to the Provost in line with expectations of the University Management whenever I
have the opportunity to do so and whenever he sounds me out. I always made sure to advise
him to liaise with the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar and to carry his Deans along so that
he could have a hitch-free administration. However, he was always very insistent on his
views about Collegiate system and the need for the College to engage the Visitor and other
stakeholders of the University directly in order to attract adequate attention to the College
for the quick development and expansion of the College in securing its accreditation as a
world standard Medical School and in running it rightly.
A major set-back for the Provost however came from the way and manner in which
he takes certain decisions or address memos to his colleagues, particularly the Dean of the
Basic Medical Sciences who feels that he’s equal to the Provost since they were both
brilliant Professors of many years of academic standing in their fields of specialization
before they retired to take the contract job. To stand against each other and to propound
theories may cause headaches for others, but it had no meaning to either as they both
decided to stand their grounds until they leave the system or was relieved of same. They
were both pensioners already. Nonetheless, other Deans often comments that democratic
tenets of the collegiate system are being set aside, absent or abused in the way and manner
that issues were handled on several matters without due and proper consultations or due to
the way and manner authority was exercised in the college affairs.
Indeed, the Provost believes that the leadership of the College belongs to medical
practitioners while other medical scientist in the college are academic subordinates, which
those in the non-clinical sciences regard as insult, since the basis of medicine starts in Basic
Medical Sciences. On a personal note, both the Provost and the Dean in question were age-
mates, classmates in high school and one of the most brilliant members of their set in high
school and the university. One of them specialised in Medicine while the other in
Physiology. The overall experience was that the College administration became a tent
pitched against itself on one side and against the University Management on the other, just
as Provost of the College neither trusts his academic and non-teaching subordinates. Only
those who were ready to stick out their necks with him to accomplish the type of collegiate
system that he advocated for the College of Medicine in the University were his partners.
Observations
In the adoption of collegiate system and its implementation process as the nitty-gritty
for the decentralization of powers in the University system, the University is bound to
address and cater for its diverse and specific academic specializations while building
enduring management dynamics around it. To therefore misconstrue the purpose that it
serves is not only to truncate the entire concept of collegiate system, but to make its
practicability antithetical, inconceivable and controversial in institutional management.
Notwithstanding the failures of a dwindling tradition often unnoticed in the University
system, a gradual assimilation of the culture of centralization of power would result to
developing a new culture of impunity, intolerance or high-handedness. This would
gradually lead the University organization and policy process far away from its basic tenets
of driving at institutional autonomy and committee democracy as it ebbs away from the
original intent and goal of attaining efficient and total quality management as a benchmark
for world class standards and academic references.
In performing my roles as a College Secretary, I could easily deduce the following
facts from the mental approach and behavioural attitude of the then Vice-Chancellor and his
Registrar. Both of them were neither medical practitioners/professionals well informed
about running typical collegiate system required by a College of Medicine as anticipated by
the then Provost. The Principal Officers were neither experts/specialists or knowledgeable
in the field of public administration beyond the experience they garnered over the years in
different positions as Provost of a College running a Faculty System or as Registry official
heading certain Faculties, Division or Directorates. However, the way and manner they
wanted the College to run was certainly different from the way the Provost wanted the
College to run as anticipated in the laws of the College which he was one of the craftsmen.
It was clear therefore from the interactions, the body language and official policy
statements of the Management that the College of Medicine was not only an appendage of
the University, but it was regarded as a mere combination of multi-faceted Faculties or
specialized medical science programmes elevated to special status with decorated leadership
main their affairs with access to the Vice-Chancellor and its Management. The College was
never seen as an autonomous arm of the University more than any other Faculty. It was just
a super-structure of an enhanced Faculty system operating without any need for a special
warrant or exercise of powers of a collegiate autonomy as granted by its secondary laws.
To the University Management, any attempt to give special attention to the College
or to grant it collegiate autonomy that would either affect the University Management or the
role of its Principal Officers and the tradition of its order of precedence, which to them is an
aberration. It was even an effrontery on authority of the Vice-Chancellor or his subordinates
(Registrar, Bursar and University Librarian) to equate or superimpose the Provost on any of
them or for the Provost to supervise the non-teaching staff redeployed to the College
contrary to existing regulations of the University. Such an attempt to give collegiate
autonomy would rock the boat of the University governance, which should be checked and
clipped in wings before it festers out of control.
Moreover, the pioneering Provost who headed the College was never assertive or
demanding unlike the new Provost since he came from retirement to do the job. He rather
saw the job as a mere daily body exercise for which he finds no imperative to seek for a
special attention or drive home the desire for autonomy and the basic needs of the College
in diverting University investments to building its structures or in acquiring powers to
recruit staff or purchase equipments.
When the new Provost therefore began to seek for special status as envisaged by the
College statutes, the University - the duo of its Principal Officers expects the College to
remain an extension of the University with an enhanced administrative structure to
coordinate the group of specialized Faculties/departments that forms the College without
any special attention or authority. Hence, the Management was not warm to a collegiate
autonomy, owing to the fact that such attempt would truncate the practicality of University
traditions that many have been used to, for over three decades.
The new Provost of the College who was an Emeritus Professor of Medicine (a
highly respected Teacher in clinical sciences and a reputable Administrator of Medicine)
insisted on the need to operate as a viable collegiate system and he continuously agitated for
the college autonomy. He was persistent through his personal statements at high policy
making meetings and by his numerous writings to the Proprietor, the Council, the Vice-
Chancellor, the Registrar and the University Management to demand for budgetary
allocation and measures of financial control, extensive control over administrative matters
and personnel management. He also insisted on the reordering of the arrangement for
protocols and recognition of University officials at ceremonies and public functions and
even in the direct control and day to day running of the College including the Faculties
without direct reference to the University. This made the University gradually hostile to the
College administration.
The unfortunate aspect of these developments was that the Provost was often very
critical and unaccommodating of any steps taken by his subordinates whether it is a Dean, a
Head of Department, College Secretary and other non-teaching officials, once it tends to
negate his official expectations and personal standards of a collegiate system. All letters of
request and recommendations were expected to pass through him and any failure to properly
appropriate a position of Chief Executive to him in the College was met with stiff
opposition and retaliations. He will always find opportunity or room to mention it and to
criticise the persons involved without any concurrence of a previous private interactions or
opportunity for an explanation and proper resolution of the issue.
Simultaneously, the Provost rather saw the College as truly transforming into a
Collegiate System where he can act without recourse to the Vice-Chancellor or any other
Principal Officer, except as stipulated by the law with reference to the College Statutes,
which is regarded as a secondary law in relation to University Law which is a primary law.
He would often insist on adoption of the MDCN and NUC circulars as statutory guides for
the administration of the Medical School as part of efforts to implement the collegiate
system and professional requirements that must be sustained.
The outcome of these unfortunate developments resulted in the fact that the
University Management took the following steps from year 2015 onward viz.
a. The University through the Senate and Council gradually redefined its Collegiate
System as envisaged and required by the University administration, irrespective
of any NUC circulars or MDCN correspondence.
b. The University upgraded the School of Postgraduate Studies into a College and
the creation of the office of the Provost and Deputy Provost for the College to
rank pari pasu with the Provost of the College of Medicine.
c. The University used the same strategy to raise the status of the new College
above those of College of Medicine which is an undergraduate medical school,
while the new college handles postgraduate studies.
d. The University reduced giving preference or special attention to the demands of
the College of Medicine while the bickering arising from the status of a College
Provost in relation to some Principal Officers was successfully discountenanced.
e. Similarly, the University brought the tenure of the then Provost to an end at the
expiration of his engagement as dictated by his letter of appointment as against
the dictates of the University law.
f. Gradually, all the old brigades were disengaged on contract appointments in the
College were disengaged and relative peace returned to the College
administration.
g. A younger and more amenable competent medical expert and teacher was
appointed as the new Provost of the College of Medicine to keep the flag flying in
getting the college accreditation process addressed as and when appropriate.
Nonetheless, the expansion and development of the College infrastructure as well as
the elaborate administrative system slowed down gradually and near to a halt.
Recommendations
There is an urgent need to therefore undertake a holistic appraisal of the roles, aims
and objectives of various institutional organizations and administrative units in the
University’s colleges and campuses, Faculties and Schools, Institutes, Departments and
academic programmes. This is essential in order for University managers to have a better
grasp of issues of institutional management and administrative practice.
Thoughts and idea sharing usually form the basic ingredients of knowledge
transformation and appreciation in studying the policy formulation processes and building
administrative practice relevant to most modern organizations, of which the University
system is no exception. Moreover, it would help institutional managers to understand and
adopt a better premise of options and processes for handling the management and
administration of Universities by allowing the use of autonomy as a form of decentralization
of power in the University system to give room for participatory governance and
accountability with existence and growth of collegiate system, campuses and academic
programmes, wherever they exist.
The collegiate system adopted by each university would be determined by its fiscal
resources and capacity to accommodate an extensive and specialized institutional structure.
Budgetary allocation and fund release can still be under the Vice-Chancellor with a Provost
being the source of request and monitoring of its utilization, even if the University is not
ready to give fiscal autonomy to the College. Nonetheless, it need to be reemphasised here
that the actual goals of cherished University traditions are founded on democratic tenets and
Committee system aided by egalitarian and participatory democratic culture, objectivity and
rationality, academic discipline and expertise, universality and ideal compromises, the
gradual ebbing away of these ethos often promotes cabbalism and mob democracy.
This leads us to ask some pertinent questions. One of such is that, what could have
influenced the departure of the University from an ideal arrangement for sustainable
organization that can make a University system enviable in power sharing and decision
making like a collegiate system? Are there no Regions/States/Provinces in a federating
system to solidify a federating state just as academic discipline and professions are different
and with varieties of professional benchmark and academic objectives? Should the
Universities run like unitary states where the Faculties/Institutes/Programmes are pooled
together like Local Government systems with their Academic Departments functioning
more or less like units of a Local Government system?
The answers are left for stakeholders in the University system. An acceptable
tradition in one clime could be a poison in another. University culture differs. Yet a well
managed University can be sustained through providing proper and affordable structures
with open access to administration for decision making and in an atmosphere that is not
gagged to leave room for doubt and suspicion. Leadership is developed by mentoring and
accessibility and not be competition and self-adulation, which is common in our clime.
It is therefore necessary to recommend that:
a. Each University has the right/powers to determine the type of collegiate system
which it could afford/run. It is obvious that an extensive collegiate system would
be very expensive and difficult to run if there are no separate financial grants and
budgetary lines to run such mini university within the university system.
b. The University administration should be mindful of the features of a collegiate
system and what is demanded for the accreditation of a College i.e. a College of
Medicine before diverting its investment into such enterprise to attract expertise
and students to it. The College would gulp more than return in fiscal terms, even
if it would contribute positively to public life and the nation at large.
c. In case of other colleges that exist in separate location as campuses, the university
should understand that a measure of financial and administrative autonomy ought
to be granted in such collegiate system since the colleges are not existing within
the same campus and thee would be need for effective management, academic
leadership and policy directions for such colleges to run and retain its viable
structures, staffing and students like a conventional institution.
d. For a specialized College like a College of Medicine or a College of Technology,
there is an urgent need to advocate for a percentage of the budget of the main
University to be dedicated to its running and development in order to fulfil its
professional and academic requirements, irrespective of the degree of autonomy
granted to it.
Conclusion
As the College Secretary and a professional University administrator deployed to
undertake the provision of support services to the Provost of the College (being a Principal
Assistant Registrar, due for appointment as a Deputy Registrar), I was in a great
dilemma/predicament that requires caution and exercise of care since I never wish to flout,
disobey/contravene University laws (whether primary or secondary laws or to incur the
wrath of the Principal Officers by disobeying their unwritten codes or dictates). However, it
was also my responsibility to ensure that administrative process and practices by carrying
out legitimate functions of my office in reporting to the Provost as the Chief Executive of
the College as stipulated by the College Statutes.
A specific responsibility demanded of me as dictated by the College Statutes in line
with the University laws/tradition is to perform my schedule of duties (job description).
During the period of my posting as a College Secretary, I made every effort to comply with
these dictates towards making all stakeholders to appreciate my role as a loyal subordinate
attempting to midwife a harmonious and peaceful relationship. Even, in instances where the
Provost, a Dean, a Director or a Faculty Officer attempted to put me in uncomfortable
situation before the University management, I kept my head under waters and explained
myself when called upon to do so, even when I had no reason to fret or answer queries in
my own best knowledge of University tradition and administrative practice.
I did not work outside the schedule of duty of my office as a College Secretary,
irrespective of any interpretation that may have been adduced to actions or the intent of my
work activity by some of my superiors or colleagues who have other motives or
perspectives about HEI administration. In the end, I was posted out of the college to a
Faculty where I continue to serve the University. In every aspect of University
administrations, professional administrators will continue to grow with the system and
avoid being made a centre of controversy or object of Management or policy makers’
discontentment. Where that is unavoidable, the professional administrators would do his
best to be able to escape any censure or unnecessary name calling, in the end of the line of
duty.
Notes and References
Adegbite, JGO, (Chief Dr.), Pioneer Registrar, Ondo State University (Now Ekiti State
University, Ado-Ekiti), August, 2014.
Ajayi, Alex (Chief), Former Ag. Registrar, University of Ife (now OAU) and 1st Nigerian
Registrar of WAEC, Ado-Ekiti, Augst, 2014
Akinleye, I.O., Deputy Registrar, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, and Congreegation
Representative on EKSU Governing Council
Araoye, Mathew (Emeritus Professor of Medicine), Provost, College of Medicine, Ekiti
State University, Ado-Ekiti, May, 2014
Babatola, J.E.T. Memo of the College Secretary on College Administration and Linkages
with Faculties addressed to all Faculty Officers in the College of Medicine, Ekiti State
University, Ado-Ekiti in July, 2014
Esan, GJF (Professor), former Provost, College of Medicine, Ekiti State University, Ado-
Ekiti.
Kolawole, Dipo, Former Vice-Chancellor of University of Ado-Ekiti (now Ekiti State
University, Ado-Ekiti), May, 2009
https://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers-advice/choosing-a-university/collegiate-
universities. Accessed 8th March, 2017
Wikipedia, Collegiate university, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_university.
Accessed 7th March, 2017
https://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers-advice/choosing-a-university/collegiate-
universities. Accessed 8th March, 2017
ADDENDUM:
TYPICAL SCHEDULE OF A COLLEGE SECRETARY (COLLEGE OF MEDICINE)
a. Reporting to Registrar as the College Secretary
b. Responsible to the Provost for the day to day effective control and administration of
the College.
c. Serving as Secretary to the Court of Governors and other standing Committees of the
College.
d. Serving as member of statutory Committees of the College namely: Junior Staff
(Appointments and Promotions) Committee, Physical Planning and Development
Committee and the Appointments and Promotions Committee
e. Providing secretariat services and administrative support to College Committees
namely: Top Management Committee, College Accreditation Planning Committee,
Curriculum Committee, Evaluation Committee, Research and Ethics Committee,
Admissions Committee, COBES Committee, Medical Education Resources (MERU)
Committee and College Prospectus Committee
f. Providing administrative and support services for staff, students’ welfare, research
and training.
g. Ensuring the custody and retrieval of all records of the College
h. Observing University regulations (including College Statue) as required.
i. Guiding Committees and the Provost on University administrative matters.
j. Supervising non-teaching staff in the College
k. Monitoring requisition and use of office materials, stationery, equipment, furniture.
l. Assisting in the processing of College admission and examination of students.
m. Attending Senate meetings to observe proceedings and take note of academic
policies and other College matters
n. Facilitating the meeting of Academic Assembly of the College for the preparation of
accreditation exercise by MDCN and NUC respectively.
o. Facilitating the conduct of the election of a new Provost for the College of Medicine
and the election of new Deans of Faculties in the College presided over by the Vice-
Chancellor and the Provost respectively
