Botched Boards Part 2: Changes to NIPA Articles Still Not Upheld
The board of the National Institute of Professional Advancement (NIPA), hosted a press conference clarifying the board’s actions and decisions. As highlighted in a previous report, significant changes to the Articles of Association (AoA) of the foundation were done in 2021. Most notable, was the changes to the composition of the board and the duration a member is allowed to sit. Also, there were increases to the monthly stipend the board members received, during a period where the school had to shoulder the financial situation brought by the Covid-19 pandemic. With the present constellation of the board, there are more independent expert members than members representing key stakeholders in the education and private sector.
Additional Changes & Infractions
Besides the increases in terms and independent members, there were several other changes made to the AoA. The previous article did not mention these, which the board clarified. Those changes are: the name change of the foundation from Advancement for Vocational Education (AVE) to NIPA, the objectives of the institute such as an amendment to include workforce development, short courses etc., and to allow decisions via virtual means. In the original 2013 AoA, the board positions had no definitions which were added in 2021, and incorporated the title of a secretary since the treasurer formerly held the responsibility. Dros mentioned the need to separate the tasks, given the workload a treasurer alone had to carry.
However, it must be noted that the board violated its own changes to the AoA regarding the appointment of expert members. In article 6 sub 4-f it states, “Four (4) members by the nomination of companies in the private sector, designated by the Board of Directors. The members appointed by the nomination of a forementioned bodies shall be managed independently and not bound by any instructions. If entities have not nominated a member within two months, the remainder of the Board of Directors may designate a temporary member, without prejudice to the right of the entity in question to still nominate a permanent member at any time."
Three of the four independent experts, which make up a majority of the board, are civil servants. Roxanne Howell works within the Ministry of Finance, Cindy-Lee Doran and Annuska Friday work within the faction of the National Alliance in Parliament. And while Elroy Hughes is not a civil servant, he works for a semi-public entity (government owned company) which is TelEm. Based on the article changes this board instituted, which company do the three civil servants represent? Also, which companies has the board nominated to solicit nominees in crucial sectors such as hospitality, maritime, health etc., while keeping in line with board profiles? By de facto, the board only has one private sector representative, which is the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (COCI). Dros notably mentioned in the press conference that board profiles were sent to a total of 8 persons in the community. It was not publicly advertised.
During the press conference, Dros stated that COCI nominee, Louis Bute did not forward his paperwork to the board however both boards were on Christmas recess. According to confidential sources, Dros stated Bute’s nominee was rejected because it was a “conflict of interest” given his employment at a firm contracted by NIPA. It was also mentioned that the decision to remove a seat from COCI was made years prior due to COCI having equal seats to the government.
Strikingly, Friday shared in the press conference that she resigned as a representative of COCI before the AoA changed. The specific year was not mentioned but she added that she resigned for personal reasons. However, there was an allowance for only three independent expert members before the December 2022 change. Thus if Howell, Doran and Hughes held those three seats, how could Friday hold an independent seat that’s not available? Based on the board’s protocol, if a seat was made available, the private sector (nominated companies) would have to propose a candidate. According to the board’s latest articles, if the private sector doesn’t nominate someone within two months, only then can the board appoint a temporary member. Therefore, the appointment of Friday, following the changes in December 2022, would have to take place in February. Instead, that fourth seat was immediately granted.
These steps highlight the overarching details provided in the former report, which showcase a consolidation of power through the legal powers granted in the AoA. The NIPA’s press statement mentioned several engagements with government such as monthly meetings, reports to education inspectorate, and other reports, submitted on a yearly basis. Dros also mentioned the former government’s “intense audit” into NIPA however, sources within the administration confirmed that the audit was pushed back by Dros and required consistent effort from the former Minister at the time to get it done.
Nonetheless, as the first article detailed, the shortfalls of good governance can be identified in the apparent follow through between stakeholders and their representatives, to the point where the board has a majority of independent members and powers that override the stakeholder. Stakeholders' influence is time sensitive and if they fail to reappoint representatives in a timely manner, the risk of a real stake in the board can be far gone. Friday’s statement in response to a question on her resignation highlights this. “I can’t give back a seat or whatever it may be. It’s a board decision on how many independent members you can have or not.” What measure is in place to stop the board from increasing the independent seat once again?
The statement from Minister of VSA Omar Ottley, during the Council of Ministers press briefing on January 18 also highlights this.
The Minister confirmed that he nor the Ministry received the amendment, although Dros is their representative. He added, “As for the reappointment, no I did not reappoint anyone.. Actually it came to my attention in October or November that the term was indeed up. We corresponded with the Ministry of Education to see what will be the next steps but according to the amendments that have now taken place, it kind of alleviates the responsibility or the opportunity for the Minister of VSA to take any action. I’m not saying that my task was to remove Ms. Dros or to keep Ms. Dros. I'm not saying that. But the amendment allows the board to now decide. So what we are trying to see if indeed the amendment stands.”
When asked if she was reappointed to the board Dros did not answer directly but stated her term is still active. Friday was also not reappointed according to reliable sources.
During NIPA’s press conference, the media was informed that the Council of Ministers and Secretariat was sent the updated amendments but during the COM press briefing, the Prime Minister, Silveria Jacobs indicated that wasn’t the case. NIPA then issued an executive statement on Facebook stating it was sent to the Ministry of ECYS on February 26, 2022. Although the amendments took place in March 2021, ECYS nor VSA was immediately informed. COCI wasn’t informed either. The questions remain as to whether the amendments were clearly pointed out in the submission or sent among a batch of legal documentation and why weren’t the stakeholders informed?
After the board’s press conference, several follow up questions were sent in writing. On January 18 a request for an update was provided to which Dros replied, “we are making every effort to provide at least some response this evening / tonight.” However, in the morning of January 19, Dros replied, “On behalf of the NIPA Board, we inform you that after Board deliberation , no further communication will be forthcoming .” She mentioned the legal request to remove the previous article as well as my engagement with legal counsel as reasoning for this decision. The response also mentioned, “ he questions present a serious risk of breach to the National Ordinance Personal Data Protection.” The follow up questions will be posted in the comment section below.
Finally, as the first article details, a request for comment was provided to Dros however, an underhanded approach to creating a press conference with other media representatives and excluding my person was taken. This led to an imposed deadline of 10 pm on January 11 for a written response. In NIPA’s conference, Dros again mentioned the activities of another school board which allowed two members to hold lifetime positions albeit she stated she’s not judging them. Nonetheless, following the press conference, several documents and reports were provided by Dros, which will be delved into and referred to in a following story regarding the work environment and revolving door at the NIPA.
Corrective Statements
In the first article regarding the board it mentions the terms of Dros and Friday ending in 2021 however their term was slated to end in March 2022. Subsequently the changes were made a year before their term was over, and as Dros mentioned, the board signed a resolution to remain for only three additional years. Upon clarification about former MECYS representative of the board, she informed the board that she’ll be leaving in April and stopped attending meetings at that point. Her official resignation with two months notice, went into effect on July 1, 2022 according to the press statement. Thus the MECYS representative seat remained empty for less than a year opposed to the stated, ‘more than a year.’
