The responses of President Amit Chakma and the Board of Governors to the incredulity that greeted the revelation of the president’s stunning salary are just more examples of what is badly wrong with the governance of our university.
President Chakma conceded that not deferring compensation for a year of administrative leave at the end of his first term to the end of his second term was a mistake. (“President’s statement on compensation,” uwo.ca, April 1) Given what has transpired, perhaps he could have negotiated almost $1 million for two years of accumulated administrative leave. Without acknowledging any impropriety whatsoever, President Chakma explained, given the “concerns” expressed, he was forfeiting both payments.
That will be a substantial financial loss, but not as substantial as the loss of his salary for the remaining years of his current contract would be – no more than a strategic solution to a strategic mistake from the president of our university.
The Board chair explained President Chakma’s initial contract was intended to pay a salary competitive with peer institutions. (“Board of Governors’ statement on compensation,” uwo.ca, April 1.) Do those peer institutions allow their presidents to double-dip?
The Board perfunctorily recognized the financial sacrifices of students, appreciated the support of alumni and noted the dedication of faculty and staff. President Chakma’s contribution to the university shines, in contrast, because he is “implementing” a new plan for increasing student retention and graduation rates and securing more research funding. One would have thought the responsibility and credit for such improvements would devolve to the faculty and graduate students who populate the classrooms and laboratories.
Regrettably, though, the Board will now have to lower its expectations of President Chakma’s ability to energize the fundraising campaign.
How can the “independent and impartial review” of Justice Goudge help? Is Justice Goudge going to recommend how much money President Chakma deserves, or how presidential compensation should be determined – or both? What, precisely, is the mandate of Justice Goudge, and how will his review be conducted? Will it be restricted to the senior administration, or will it be open to the entire university? How much will it cost? Will Justice Goudge’s report be made public?
Nobody contests the legality of Dr. Chakma’s remuneration. So, what are the goals of this review, what is its scope and who will participate? Not surprisingly, the Board has nothing to say.
This administrative boondoggle is the result of poor judgment and poor governance. Both are fostered by the insularity and the secrecy of the decision making of the senior administration of our university, in particular, the decision making of the Board’s Senior Operations Committee.
We do not need Justice Goudge to tell us that.
Barry Hoffmaster
Department of Philosophy
