20 de novembro de 2006
Oxford em polvorosa
Muito tenho escrito sobre a governação, contra o nosso modelo corporativo-colegial e defendendo um modelo de governação estratégica, profissionalizada e com grande influência do meio extra-universitário. Como adivinham, recebo críticas ferozes. No entanto, se me colocar no papel do advogado do diabo, estranho sempre nunca receber a crítica de mais difícil resposta, a governação das duas melhores universidades europeias, Oxford e Cambridge.
No modelo de governação anglo-saxónico, Oxbridge é excepção, sinal do culto pela tradição, mas numa cultura em que a tradição se vai sempre adequando à modernidade. O poder máximo compete à congregação, uma enorme assembleia de mais de 3000 membros constituída pelos "dons": os "fellows" dos colégios, representantes dos investigadores, dos técnicos superiores de laboratórios, informática, bibliotecas e museus, também representantes do pessoal administrativo. Curiosamente, não por representantes dos estudantes. A congregação elege o "vice-chancelor" (reitor) e o conselho, de cerca de 40-50 membros, mas já reduzido para os 26 actuais, uma espécie de senado. Muitas decisões do conselho têm de ser aprovadas pela congregação, várias vezes ao ano. Como é que se reúnem três milhares de pessoas? Mas é verdade, vejam na net a página de resoluções da congregação. Só à inglesa. "Why can't continentals be like us?" (parafraseando o My Fair Lady).
Isto é uma aberração, em termos de teoria das organizações, mas funciona. O que significa que, muito mais importante do que o modelo consensual de organização é a cultura institucional e a qualidade das pessoas (a congregação inclui vários prémios Nobel). Nem tentem transpor para Portugal.
No entanto, Oxford está em polvorosa, com a proposta de mudança da governação, da autoria do "vice-chancelor", John Hood, que tem estado em discussão nas últimas semanas. E, todavia, não é nada de especial. Até preserva o essencial do "parlamentarismo" do governo de Oxford.
- The size and composition of the University Council should be modified in the light of its key role in institutional governance. Membership should be reduced from 26 to 15. It should have seven internal and seven lay (non-University) members and a lay Chair. Congregation, the University’s parliament, should approve the membership of Council.
- A Nominations Committee should put forward the names of lay candidates to Council for approval by Congregation. - The Committee should be chaired by the Chancellor of the University, and a majority of its members should be drawn from Congregation.
- Congregation’s procedures for passing a vote of no confidence in Council should be simplified.
- Council should have four major committees, responsible for Audit and Scrutiny, Finance, Investment, and Remuneration (of senior officers). The Audit and Scrutiny Committee would have wide powers, including the right to instigate investigations, to summon officers and to see any document it required.
- An Academic Board should be created to oversee the University’s academic activity. Its membership of 35 should be wide-ranging, with the majority representing Congregation and the Colleges.
- The Academic Board should have five main committees, reflecting its responsibility for academic affairs: Education, Research, Personnel, Planning and Resource Allocation, and General Purposes.
Praticamente, todas as objecções, lá como cá, se centraram numa única coisa: a participação decisiva de membros externos no conselho, mesmo que em minoria. Também, embora com menos objecções, a separação do poder politico, do conselho, e do poder académico, do novo "Academic Board", embora o conselho tenha poder de veto em relação ao conselho académico. Esta separação é acentuada pela diferentes presidências: a do conselho pelo "chancelor" (tradicionalmente, uma grande figura da vida política, social ou cultural) e a do "Academic Board" pelo "vice-chancelor".
Argumentos a favor:
Do "chancelor", Lord Chris Patten, o último governador de Hong Kong: " If we want things to stay as they are, they have to change [JVC – pelos vistos, leu O Leopardo, de Lampedusa!]. (…)If we want to convince the government, charities and benefactors that you are efficiently run, open to dialogue with them and prepared to listen to them, how can you argue that externals shouldn't have a position on the board that looks after the broad interests of the university? (…) People have given the impression that we can't involve outsiders because they don't really understand the values of the university and would turn it into Asda or Tesco. At the same time, we want to get more support from alumni [JVC – na terminologia anglo-saxónica, os antigos alunos], and donors and government. Has no one noticed a certain hiccup in the argument? (…) Are we as good as we are because of the way we are managed or despite the way we are managed? And can we stay world class, given the way we are managed?"
Do "vice-chancelor", John Hood: "The self-governing structure and the college system are among Oxford's greatest strengths, alongside the creativity and talent of the individuals that work here.The governance discussion paper puts forward revised proposals aimed at preserving what is best, while at the same time making the decision-making process less remote and more efficient. (…) Putting the right governance arrangements in place is vital if we are to maintain the academic pre-eminence and global reputation of Oxford University. These sensible and progressive recommendations, which have been developed with great care and attention, can do much to help us to meet that challenge."
De Sir Peter Lampl, milionário filantropo, antigo aluno e o maior doador de Oxford: "I have always been more likely to invest in organisations - whether charities or commercial companies - which are transparently run, which draw on a range of expertise, and which are open to new ideas from the outside. The same is true of Oxford. (…) Oxford alumni are far more likely to give both time and money if they feel that they and their peers have a real say in the university's direction."
Contra, excertos de muitas declarações avulsas:
"The proposed new system would be a step backwards. The new council, with its majority of busy external members, would naturally defer to the university executive, and would be wholly dependent on paperwork supplied by the vice-chancellor's office: hardly a recipe for robust scrutiny."
"All the powers of the proposed academic board would be delegated to it by council, which could veto the board's decisions. To guard against the possibility of the board challenging the executive in any serious way, its proposed membership is also arranged so as to ensure a permanent pro-executive majority. The notion that academic matters would remain under academic control is simply false."
"Such a move would destroy the efficiency of plurality. It would destroy collegiality. It would impose a cousin of dumbed down sector-norm governance."
Parecem-me redondas e estafadas. Lembram-me os argumentos cá da casa.
Entretanto, já houve uma primeira votação da congregação, maioritariamente a favor da reforma, 652 votos contra 507 (participação de cerca de um terço). No entanto, terá de ser ratificada, no fim deste mês.
Cambridge, em silêncio, está à espreita e segue tudo isto com atenção.
Quem quiser conhecer toda a história pode ler o Guardian.
No modelo de governação anglo-saxónico, Oxbridge é excepção, sinal do culto pela tradição, mas numa cultura em que a tradição se vai sempre adequando à modernidade. O poder máximo compete à congregação, uma enorme assembleia de mais de 3000 membros constituída pelos "dons": os "fellows" dos colégios, representantes dos investigadores, dos técnicos superiores de laboratórios, informática, bibliotecas e museus, também representantes do pessoal administrativo. Curiosamente, não por representantes dos estudantes. A congregação elege o "vice-chancelor" (reitor) e o conselho, de cerca de 40-50 membros, mas já reduzido para os 26 actuais, uma espécie de senado. Muitas decisões do conselho têm de ser aprovadas pela congregação, várias vezes ao ano. Como é que se reúnem três milhares de pessoas? Mas é verdade, vejam na net a página de resoluções da congregação. Só à inglesa. "Why can't continentals be like us?" (parafraseando o My Fair Lady).
Isto é uma aberração, em termos de teoria das organizações, mas funciona. O que significa que, muito mais importante do que o modelo consensual de organização é a cultura institucional e a qualidade das pessoas (a congregação inclui vários prémios Nobel). Nem tentem transpor para Portugal.
No entanto, Oxford está em polvorosa, com a proposta de mudança da governação, da autoria do "vice-chancelor", John Hood, que tem estado em discussão nas últimas semanas. E, todavia, não é nada de especial. Até preserva o essencial do "parlamentarismo" do governo de Oxford.
- The size and composition of the University Council should be modified in the light of its key role in institutional governance. Membership should be reduced from 26 to 15. It should have seven internal and seven lay (non-University) members and a lay Chair. Congregation, the University’s parliament, should approve the membership of Council.
- A Nominations Committee should put forward the names of lay candidates to Council for approval by Congregation. - The Committee should be chaired by the Chancellor of the University, and a majority of its members should be drawn from Congregation.
- Congregation’s procedures for passing a vote of no confidence in Council should be simplified.
- Council should have four major committees, responsible for Audit and Scrutiny, Finance, Investment, and Remuneration (of senior officers). The Audit and Scrutiny Committee would have wide powers, including the right to instigate investigations, to summon officers and to see any document it required.
- An Academic Board should be created to oversee the University’s academic activity. Its membership of 35 should be wide-ranging, with the majority representing Congregation and the Colleges.
- The Academic Board should have five main committees, reflecting its responsibility for academic affairs: Education, Research, Personnel, Planning and Resource Allocation, and General Purposes.
Praticamente, todas as objecções, lá como cá, se centraram numa única coisa: a participação decisiva de membros externos no conselho, mesmo que em minoria. Também, embora com menos objecções, a separação do poder politico, do conselho, e do poder académico, do novo "Academic Board", embora o conselho tenha poder de veto em relação ao conselho académico. Esta separação é acentuada pela diferentes presidências: a do conselho pelo "chancelor" (tradicionalmente, uma grande figura da vida política, social ou cultural) e a do "Academic Board" pelo "vice-chancelor".
Argumentos a favor:
Do "chancelor", Lord Chris Patten, o último governador de Hong Kong: " If we want things to stay as they are, they have to change [JVC – pelos vistos, leu O Leopardo, de Lampedusa!]. (…)If we want to convince the government, charities and benefactors that you are efficiently run, open to dialogue with them and prepared to listen to them, how can you argue that externals shouldn't have a position on the board that looks after the broad interests of the university? (…) People have given the impression that we can't involve outsiders because they don't really understand the values of the university and would turn it into Asda or Tesco. At the same time, we want to get more support from alumni [JVC – na terminologia anglo-saxónica, os antigos alunos], and donors and government. Has no one noticed a certain hiccup in the argument? (…) Are we as good as we are because of the way we are managed or despite the way we are managed? And can we stay world class, given the way we are managed?"
Do "vice-chancelor", John Hood: "The self-governing structure and the college system are among Oxford's greatest strengths, alongside the creativity and talent of the individuals that work here.The governance discussion paper puts forward revised proposals aimed at preserving what is best, while at the same time making the decision-making process less remote and more efficient. (…) Putting the right governance arrangements in place is vital if we are to maintain the academic pre-eminence and global reputation of Oxford University. These sensible and progressive recommendations, which have been developed with great care and attention, can do much to help us to meet that challenge."
De Sir Peter Lampl, milionário filantropo, antigo aluno e o maior doador de Oxford: "I have always been more likely to invest in organisations - whether charities or commercial companies - which are transparently run, which draw on a range of expertise, and which are open to new ideas from the outside. The same is true of Oxford. (…) Oxford alumni are far more likely to give both time and money if they feel that they and their peers have a real say in the university's direction."
Contra, excertos de muitas declarações avulsas:
"The proposed new system would be a step backwards. The new council, with its majority of busy external members, would naturally defer to the university executive, and would be wholly dependent on paperwork supplied by the vice-chancellor's office: hardly a recipe for robust scrutiny."
"All the powers of the proposed academic board would be delegated to it by council, which could veto the board's decisions. To guard against the possibility of the board challenging the executive in any serious way, its proposed membership is also arranged so as to ensure a permanent pro-executive majority. The notion that academic matters would remain under academic control is simply false."
"Such a move would destroy the efficiency of plurality. It would destroy collegiality. It would impose a cousin of dumbed down sector-norm governance."
Parecem-me redondas e estafadas. Lembram-me os argumentos cá da casa.
Entretanto, já houve uma primeira votação da congregação, maioritariamente a favor da reforma, 652 votos contra 507 (participação de cerca de um terço). No entanto, terá de ser ratificada, no fim deste mês.
Cambridge, em silêncio, está à espreita e segue tudo isto com atenção.
Quem quiser conhecer toda a história pode ler o Guardian.
Subscrever Mensagens [Atom]
