The row in University College Cork must be one of the longest and nastiest in recent academic history. While obviously of central importance to UCC itself and its reputation, several aspects of the affair have considerably wider implications, writes Mary Raftery
For more than four years, stories have appeared in the papers about the deep unease, even alarm, felt by many UCC academics about the stewardship of the university by its president, Prof Gerry Wrixon.
These came to a head last year when professor of philosophy Des Clarke produced a detailed list of problems. Himself a member of UCC's governing body, he wrote to Minister for Education Mary Hanafin last July, making 54 allegations concerning management failures within the university, particularly at governing body level.
Given the longevity of the internal row, and the resulting publicity and damage to UCC's reputation, it was clear that action was required from the Minister.
Mary Hanafin's response, however, was less than adequate. What UCC desperately needed was the appointment of a wholly independent investigator with full legal powers to access any and all materials and records pertinent to the allegations made.
Provision for precisely this had been made in the 1997 Universities Act. There was no need to reinvent the wheel - the simple appointment of a "visitor", designated as a sitting or retired High or Supreme Court judge under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, would have suited the purpose admirably.
The Minister decided this was unnecessary. She said that to follow such a course of action would be to take the allegations too seriously.
In the context of such blatant pre-judging of the issues involved, it is hardly surprising that Des Clarke and his other whistle-blowing colleagues were dismayed at the eventual decision favoured by the Minister.
This, as Prof Clarke has correctly pointed out, was to allow the UCC governing body to control the selection of the individual who would investigate the allegations against itself. He or she would have no legal powers to inspect documents or force compliance with the inquiry. And further, the terms of reference were set by the very body under investigation.
In protest, Des Clarke refused to co-operate with the investigation, which was carried out by John Malone, a retired secretary general of the Department of Agriculture.
His report, which I have read, has yet to be formally discussed by UCC's governing body. It is a relatively short document and somewhat difficult to follow in that it presupposes an in-depth knowledge of the allegations made without listing them in detail. Mr Malone concludes: "It is clear that a number of the allegations put forward by Professor Clarke are correct both in substance and fact." He reports that others are trivial and that a number have not been substantiated. "However," he adds, "collectively they do not convey a good impression and they certainly highlight a lack of awareness and, in some cases, a disregard for process and procedures. The number of instances where short cuts have been taken, where procedures have not been used or have not worked is a matter of concern." Mr Malone concludes, however, that this does not amount to mismanagement. He found no evidence of corruption, and is complimentary about UCC's record of reform under its recently retired president, Gerry Wrixon.
He does, though, point to serious deficiencies in pursuing these reforms, particularly the failure to win the hearts and minds of the staff. He criticises the lack of leadership from the governing body, describing it as incapable of "acting in a collegial manner".
It is important to point out that Mr Malone's independence and integrity are unquestioned, and that he was satisfied he received full co-operation during his investigation.
Nonetheless, serious questions remain about the way in which the process of inquiry was established.
The visitor provision in the Universities Act was included for the excellent purpose of providing a transparent and legally-supported mechanism to investigate concerns relating to the governance of academic institutions.
The UCC case presented an important test as to whether the Government was prepared to apply this aspect of the legislation in a proper manner. It has manifestly failed to do so.
Instead, the approach taken is both dangerous and damaging. It creates the unpleasant precedent of allowing public bodies under investigation to have an unhealthily large say in how and by whom they are to be scrutinised.
It also sends a message that legal powers are not required for such a process.
It has been one of the most positive features of this country's rapid development that there is a growing intolerance for turning a blind, or even partially-sighted, eye when problems arise within public bodies. This relatively recent demand for strong, clear and open mechanisms of oversight and accountability is powerful evidence of a maturing democracy. It is one which a government ignores at its peril.