Statement of concerned UPR-RP Faculty to the MSCHE Evaluation Team

March 1st, 2016

A group of Faculty members is concerned with long-standing issues and problems of
governance that affect the UPR system.
Good governance is participatory, transparent and accountable, effective and equitable.
According to the World Bank, good governance is epitomized by predictable, open
and enlightened policy making; a bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos; an
executive arm of government accountable for its actions; and a strong civil society
participating in public affairs; and all behaving under the rule of law. World Bank
1994: Governance: The World Banks Experience.
Unfortunately this is not the case for the UPR system. Although the UPR and its
campuses are autonomous in theory, in reality every time the ruling party changes it
forces changes upon the high and middle ranking management of the University. The
University is treated as a war booty, since it counts over 900 discretional system-wide
appointments from chancellors to deans to department chairs and directors.
In 2011, the MSCHE placed the UPR on probation for various reasons: 1) Its low level of
non-governmental funding sources; 2) The high influence of politics in appointing high
and middle ranking management; 3) Inconsistent institutional compliance with norms and
guidelines; and 4) Problems of institutional climate and the cultivation of an open
university culture, empowerment of leadership and governance.
After changes and promises from the previous administration, accreditation was restored.
Unfortunately, after the 2012 election the new government engaged in similar practices
as the previous one. The Board of Trustees was replaced through legislation by a
Governing Board, where the majority of its members are appointed by the governor. All
chancellors were replaced and with them, most deans throughout the system. Politics
rather than academic merits were the primary criteria for the majority of these changes,
and one of the many consequences was that there was no coordinated and visible effort
to give continuity to the changes initiated before 2012 to improve institutional standing.
In the case of the Ro Piedras Campus, an Interim chancellor replaced deans that had
been selected by institutional governance processes. The strategic plan presented to the
MSCHE by the Campus Visin Universidad 2016 has been virtually abandoned.
Moreover, although a committee to develop a new strategic plan was hastily formed in
anticipation of reaccreditation, it was not widely publicized and there have not been any
discussions about the committee or the issues with faculty, students and stakeholders.

Statement of concerned UPR-RP Faculty to the MSCHE Evaluation Team

In the midst of the economic crisis cuts in services and academic programs have been
conducted without consultation and scholarships and other resources have been
assigned through processes of dubious legal and institutional validity. The irregular
actions of UPRs high management in the consideration and allocation of Presidential
Scholarships have been denounced by the Student Council and Faculty. These actions
of mismanagement, favoritism, cronyism and nepotism are under serious scrutiny by the
press. In fact they have become a public scandal that has already affected institutional
credibility and standing.
Aside from these general issues and practices of bad governance, there is great concern
with institutional compliance of accreditation standards.
1. Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal: Steps taken that the
institution continues to improve communication, especially with respect to soliciting
and considering campus input in decision-making.
Commitments made to MSCHE have not been fulfilled. Institutional decisions
continue to be made without significant participation from community members
and stakeholders. In fact the most recent crucial decision of the UPR President
centralizing finances and budget priorities given problems of cash flow, was not
notified in a timely manner to deans and faculty, who learned of this decision
through the press.
2. Institutional Resources: Steps taken to strengthen institutional resources and
developing alternative forms of income, including institutional pro-forma budgets
that demonstrate the institutions ability to generate a balanced budget for fiscal
years 2012 through 2014, including the personnel, compensation, and other
assumptions on which these budgets are based.
The emergency centralization of finances by the UPR President shifted over
$700,000 dollars in indirect costs income from research projects from the Ro
Piedras Campus to other campuses.
The 2013 operational plan of the UPR-RP campus was abandoned with the
dismissal of the Chancellor and her replacement with an Interim Chancellor.
Faculty have expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that there are no strategic and
operational plans that are the product of institutional discussions and consensus
building.
There are still problems with timely production of audited financial statements.
3. Leadership and Governance.
There have not been effective steps taken to improve communication and shared
governance, especially in documenting how campus input is solicited and

Statement of concerned UPR-RP Faculty to the MSCHE Evaluation Team

considered in decision making at the system level as the recent cash flow
emergency demonstrated.
Often faculty and students learn of changes and programs through the press. The
recent Presidential Scholarships scandal revealed how the President, the UPR-RP
Chancellor, and two deans colluded to favor three individuals obtain the grants.
The favored individuals were a former aid to the current governor, a former aid to
the governors brother and former UPR president (2001-09), and the niece of the
president of the Board of Governors of UPR. The Deans of the School of Law and
College of Business Administration have confirmed that they were not consulted in
this process, even though the faculty positions reserved for the scholarship
recipients would be in their units.
The Governing Board ordered a study on the restructuring of the UPR system and
did not circulate the report in a timely manner for discussion and input from the 11
campuses before considering it. If there was any discussion, it was limited to a
clique of high ranking administrators and their associates.
There is no clear procedure for the periodic assessment of the governing board.
The Board of Trustees was replaced by an act of the Legislature by a Governing
Board, without consultation to anyone in the institution or the community.
4. Administration: Evidence that steps have been taken to assure continuity and
stability of institutional leadership, particularly in times of governmental transitions
The pattern of taking the university as war booty by political parties upon winning
elections and changing ruling parties continues. It is evidenced by the unilateral
and arbitrary change by legislative action eliminating the Board of Trustees and
replacing it with a Board of Governors. It is no secret that both the President of the
UPR System and the UPR-RP Chancellor were appointed through political
maneuverings by the governor and the governing party. The consultation
processes were manipulated, when not blatantly violated
Certification 38 of October 26, 2012, regarding new policies for Graduate Studies,
has been only partially implemented with deficient guidance by the Office of the
Dean of Graduate Studies. The Interim Chancellor placed it on hold in 2013 and
has not acted on it.
5. Integrity: That the institution creates additional opportunities, both formal and
informal to directly receive input from students.
Although some steps have been taken in this direction, the centralization of
finances by the Central Administration and the procedures in the case of
Presidential Scholarships demonstrate that there is not full transparency and clear
channels of institutional communication.

Statement of concerned UPR-RP Faculty to the MSCHE Evaluation Team

6. Institutional Assessment: Evidence of further implementation of the UPR Action

Plan, including evidence that the action plan is being assessed and data is used
for improvements
As mentioned above the operational plan was abandoned in 2013. There is no
reliable process of data collection and no institutional knowledge management
mechanisms in place.

Respectfully submitted:

Prof. Emilio Pantojas Garca

College of Social Sicences

Prof. Carlos Daz Olivo

School of Law

Prof. Jorge Giovanetti

College of Social Sciences

Prof. Luis Ferrao

College of General Studies

Prof. Heidi Figueroa Sarriera

College of Social Sicences

Prof. Beatriz Rivera

College of Business Administration

Prof. Luis Ortiz

College of Humanities

Statement of concerned UPR-RP Faculty to the MSCHE Evaluation Team