Miss Universe 2007

MISS UNIVERSE 2007

By Alejandro Guevara Onofre

MISS UNIVERSE 2000

SITE: Nicosia, Cyprus.

HISTORY. Representatives from 79 countries, territories and dependencies attended the Miss Universe contest. Certainly, India became the most powerful country in the Beauty World. Miss India, Lara Dutta, has all the qualities to be a Miss Universe-intelligence, beauty, personality, charisma and determination. Finally, Ms. Dutta was the new Miss Universe. It was one of her lifelong dreams to become Miss Universe. Few misses have had careers as long and varied as Lara Dutta.

In a career of more than seven years, she has been professional model, ambassador and actress. Lara once said, "Winning the Miss Universe title is the culmination of a dream".

Like Miss Universe 2000, she went to Saint Marteen, Puerto Rico, USA, Colombia, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, Switzerland, Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. Ms. Dutta became well-known to millions as a women's rights activist in India. Lara Dutta was one of the best known misses of the 21st century.

MISS UNIVERSE 2001

SITE: Bayamon, Puerto Rico.

HISTORY. Representatives from 77 countries and dependencies attended the Miss Universe. Osmel Sousa, president of Miss Venezuela Organization, wanted to win the Miss Universe title. People who have worked with him say he's a perfectionist preparing carefully for each project. He is a very private man, who rarely gives interviews.

At the onset, Venezuela's Eva Monica Ekvall Johnson was the favorite by experts and journalists. Miss Venezuela reached the finals, but surprisingly, she only came in fourth place. Many people felt that the decision was unfair.

A Puerto Rican won the Miss Universe contest again. Like Margarita Moran (Miss Philippines and Miss Universe 1973) and Janelle Penny Commissiong (Miss Trinidad Tobago and Miss Universe), Miss Puerto Rico, Denisse Quiñones, was crowned also Miss Photogenic Universe.Denisse's ambition was to become a professional singer.

MISS UNIVERSE 2002

SITE: San Juan de Puerto Rico.

HISTORY. San Juan de Puerto Rico hosted the pageant.

The favorites were Colombia (Vanesa Alexandra Mendoza Bustos), India (Neha Dhupia), Panama (Justine Paseak), China (Zhuo Ling), and Russia (Oksana Federova).All made the semi-finalists except for Colombia. Ms.Mendoza became the first black woman to be named Miss Colombia. Miss Colombia will always be remembered as the first black woman representing her country in this contest.

For the first time since 1990, communist bloc sent a Miss China to compete in the Miss Universe. Ironically, Miss Cuba pageant has been forbidden since 1960 by Cuban dictatorship.

At the onset, China's Zhuo Ling was one of the most popular delegates. Finally, Miss China was the 1st runner-up.

Russia´s Oxana Federova was elected Miss Universe. However, she was obligated to give back the title of Miss Universe. Ms. Federova was a controversial woman. Certainly, her popularity declined in her own country.

During the next months in New York City, Miss Panama, Justine Lissette Pasek Patiño, was crowned Miss Universe 2002. Ms. Pasek was long considered one of the most intelligent women in the Miss Universe history. Panama's Justine Paseak was born in Kharkov, Ukrania. She had a very happy childhood there with her parents. Next years, her family moved to Panama City. Justine had several years experience as professional model.

MISS UNIVERSE 2003

SITE: Panama City, Panama.

HISTORY. For the second time, Panama City hosted the pageant. One of the most enthusiastic fans was Panamanian president Mireya Elisa Moscoso Rodriguez. On September1, 1999, Mireya Moscoso became Panama's first female head of state.

The favorites were Miss Dominican Republic (Amelia Vega), Miss Japan (Miyako Miyazaki), Miss Brazil (Gislaine Rodrigues Ferreira) and the Miss USA (Susie Castillo Cintrom). Ms. Castillo has Puerto Rican descent. Miss Japan was undoubtedly one of the great beauties of the 2000s.

Under the leadership of two Venezuelans, Miss Dominican Republic became Miss Universe. Amelia Vega became Dominican Republic's first Miss Universe. For the first time since 1992, Miss India did not qualify for the semi-finals.

Like Miss Universe 2003, she went to Indonesia, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Ecuador, Thailand, Vietnam, Guyana, USA, India, Saint Maarten and the People's Republic of China.

MISS UNIVERSE 2004

SITE: Quito, Ecuador.

HISTORY. Ecuadorian newspapers reported that misses Ukraine (Okelsandra Nikolayenko), Venezuela (Ana Karina Añez Delgado), Australia (Jennifer Hawkins), USA (Shandi Ren Finnessey), Paraguay (Yanina Alicia Gonzalez Jorgge), and Ecuador(Susana Rivadeneira Simbal) were the most favored to win the contest.

Surprisingly, Miss Ukraine did not enter the semi-finals. Before she went to Ecuador, Okelsandra Nikolayenko competed in Miss World 2001, where she was semi-finalist. Venezuela's Ana Añez admired Mahatma Gandhi. "Mahatma Gandhi has been a big influence in my life thanks to his political and religious influence he gave to the world", she said.

For the first time since 1982, Miss Venezuela did not qualify for the semi-finals. It was sadness for Venezuela's Osmel Sousa. He once said: "If Venezuela does not make it in the finals, I will have a heart attack!"

Miss Australia was elected Miss Universe. She became Australia's second Miss Universe. The next day her photo was see all over the world and from that moment the name Jennifer Hawkins was known everywhere. Ms. Hawkins is perhaps the most beautiful woman in Miss Australia history.

The judges were Petra Nemcova (Czech fashion model), Monique Menniken (German fashion model), Elsa Benitez (Mexican super-model), Bo Derek (American actress), Bill Rancic (American entrepreneur), Anne Martin (vice-president of Global Cosmetics and Marketing of Proctor & Gamble Cosmetics), Emilio Estefan (music producer), Jon Tutolo (president of Trump Model Management), and Jefferson Perez ( 1996 Ecuadorian Olympic gold medalist).

MISS UNIVERSE 2005

SITE: Bangkok, Thailand.

HISTORY. Among the most popular delegates in the pageant were Canada's Natalie Glebova, Dominican Republic´s Renata de Jesus Soñe Savery, Mexico's Laura Elizondo Erhard, Venezuela's Monica Spear, India's Amrita Thapar, South Africa´s Claudia Henkel, and Switzerland's Fiona Hefti.

A naturalized Canadian citizen who was born in Russia and came to Canada, Natalie Glebova was elected Miss Canada and Miss Universe 2005.Her beauty was loved by millions of people. She became well-known to millions as an anti-AIDS activist in the Third World.

The judges were Carson Kressley(American designer), Cassie Lewis (American model), Bryan Dattilo (American actor), Jean Georges Vongerichten (French chef), Okelsandra Nikolayenko (actress and former Miss Ukraine), Porntip "Bui" Nakhirunkanok (former Miss Thailand and Miss Universe 1988), Mario Cimarro (Mexican actor), Anne Martin (vice-president of Global Cosmetics and Marketing of Proctor & Gamble Cosmetics) Kevin S. Bright (American television executive producer), Heidi Albertsen (Danish model), and Khun Rom Pakdi (Thai actor).

Like Miss Universe 2005, she went to Greece, Canada, India, USA, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Ecuador and Brazil.

MISS UNIVERSE 2006

SITE: Los Angeles, California (USA).

HISTORY. At the onset, Japan's Kurara Chibana was the favorite. Like Miss Japan 2003, Miyako Miyazaki, she was a beautiful exotic girl from Okinawa, the birthplace of the karate. Certainly, Miss Japan had several fans. However, Miss Puerto Rico,Zuleyka Rivera, made history by becoming the fifth Puerto Rican winner of the contest. She was one of the most famous models in her country. During the Miss Universe, Miss Puerto Rico was bilingual in English and Spanish.

Miss Universe 2006 was dominated by Latin America: Puerto Rico, Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico and Trinidad-Tobago.

The judges were Amelia Vega (former Miss Dominican Republic and Miss Universe), Marc Cherry (American writer), Claudia Jordan (Miss Rhode Island 1997), Tom Green (Canadian sock comic), Emmitt Smith (former American football player), James Lesure (American actor), Maria Celeste Arrras (Puerto Rican journalist), Patrick McMullan (American designer), Santino Rice (American fashion designer), Bridgette Wilson-Sampras (actress and former Miss Teen USA) and Sean Yazbeck (British actor).

MISS UNIVERSE 2007

SITE: Mexico City, Mexico

HISTORY: Representatives from 77 countries attended the Miss Universe pageant.

The favorites are Venezuela´s Ly Jonaites, Tanzania´s Flavia Matata, South Korea's Honey Lee, Japan's Riyo Mori, and Philippines's Ana Therese Licaros.

Miss Venezuela is a fashion model. She has gorgeous brown hair, kind brown eyes and beautiful smile which lights up her whole face. Furthermore, she speaks three languages. She admires Princess Diana Spencer. Her dream is to become fashion designer. She once said, "I plan to be a fashion designer and have my own boutique expressing my personality through my art". Certainly, Ly Jonaites is one of the best delegates in the Miss Universe history.

The judges are Nave Navarro (singer/American-Mexican), Tony Romo (Professional football player/American-Mexican), James Kyson Lee (actor/American-Korean), Justine Pasek (former Miss Panama and Miss Universe), Adel Chabbi (stylist/French-Tunisie), Dimitris Margetas (American-Greek/ charge of Consumer Marketing for Proctor & Gamble´s Prestige Products Inc), Marc Bouwer (American fashion designer), Dayanara Torrres (former Miss Puerto Rico and Miss Universe), Fred Howard (American-African fashion designer), Thuy Than (American-Vietnamese fashion photographer), Michelle Kwan (American-Chinese sportswoman), Nina Garcia (American-Colombian journalist), Leigh Rossini (American publicist) and Lindsay Clubine (American fashion model).

World’s Top-25 Universities- Massive Accumulation of Endowment Wealth

An assessment carried out by AllAboutUni.com reveals that a massive accumulation of endowment wealth has been put together by the World's Top-25 universities [1]. AllAboutUni.com is an independent, global and interactive website where visitors can obtain information about universities (global rankings, student reviews, university news and campus pictures).

The World's Top-25 universities in 2008 (click here) are mainly located in the United States (18 out of 25) and are often private institutions (11 out of 25). This distribution is more pronounced for the World's Top-10 universities, where 8 out of 10 are located in the United States (US) and 7 out of 10 are private institutions.

Total endowments for each of the universities were collected from Wikipedia.org (accessed on 29 October 2008), and non-US endowments were converted into US dollars (exchange rate of 29 October 2008). The endowments of two universities were not available: the University of Tokyo in Japan (ranked 19th) and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Zurich in Switzerland (ranked jointly 24th). The analysis is therefore based on 23 universities (18 from the US and 5 from other countries (United Kingdom (3), Canada and Japan) and is a conservative estimate.

The total endowment of the 23 universities was $170.2 billion, and ranged from $172 million (University College London in the UK, ranked 22nd) to $36.9 billion (Harvard University in the US, ranked 1st). The median endowment is $5.9 billion, with universities in the US having higher endowments (median of $6.1 billion, range $471 million to $36.9 billion) than those in the other countries (median of $2.2 billion, range $172 million to $3.4 billion).

Four private universities in the US had 56% of the total endowment wealth of the World's Top-25 universities: Harvard University ($36.9 billion - 22%), Yale University ($22.9 billion - 14%), Stanford University ($17.2 billion - 10%) and Princeton University ($17 billion - 10%). It is therefore no surprise that the private universities in the US have higher endowments (median of $7.2 billion) than the public universities in the US (median of $1.3 billion).

This accumulation of wealth by the World's Top-25 universities is quite astonishing. For example, the total wealth accumulated by the World's Top-25 universities is greater than the budget of the State of California ($111 billion in 2008-09) or it places these universities 41st in the country ranking of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) according to the International Monetary Fund (in front of Nigeria, Romania and Israel). The accumulation of endowment wealth by universities has both positive and negative sides. A large university endowment supports the operating budget of the university and gives the university greater independence and resources which can be used, for example, to establish new research institutes or to fund scholarships. In the fiscal year 2008, distributions from the Harvard University endowment totalled $1.6 billion, contributing more than one third of the university's operating budget in addition to supporting substantial capital outlays.

There are also a number of negative sides associated with large university endowments. One of these is that it gives the university an image of accumulating too much wealth and being greedy. Another is that it leads to criticism about the allocation of the endowment income (for example, Harvard University could allow its students to attend for free for just $300 million, which is a fraction of the 2008 endowment income. Finally, it makes it impossible for other (less well endowed) universities around the world to compete on an even playing field with universities that have established very large endowments.

Background note: [1] The analysis is based on a ranking of the World's Top-500 Universities produced by the Institute of Higher Education at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Several indicators of academic or research performance are used to establish the ranking, these include staff winning Nobel Prizes, highly cited researchers and articles indexed in major citation indices. The rankings have been published since 2003, with the 2008 ranking published on 15 August 2008.

What Makes a Top University?

A number of assessments carried out by AllAboutUni.com indicate that the general characteristics of a top university are the following: being based in North America or Europe, being in an area where other top universities are clustered, having a large endowment and being a private institution. AllAboutUni.com is an independent, global and interactive website where visitors can obtain information about universities (global rankings, student reviews, university news and campus pictures).

The analysis is based on a ranking of the World’s Top-500 Universities produced by the Institute of Higher Education at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Several indicators of academic or research performance are used to establish the ranking, these include staff winning Nobel Prizes, highly cited researchers and articles indexed in major citation indices. The rankings have been published since 2003, with the 2008 ranking published on 15 August 2008.

Location An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that the World’s Top-500 universities are mainly located in Europe (n=210; 40%) and the Americas (n=190; 40%). In the Americas, 95% of the universities are located in the United States (84%; n=159) and Canada (11%; n=21).

Clustering An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that in both the United States (US) and Europe there is a clustering of the world’s top universities. In the US, 36% (57 out of 159) of universities - more than one in three - are located in just five States: New York (15), California (13), Texas (13), Massachusetts (9) and Pennsylvania (7). In Europe, more than one in three (36%) of the Top-25 universities are located in United Kingdom.

 Public - Private An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that 70% of the World's Top-10 universities are private institutions, suggesting that at the very top of the rankings private universities perform better than public universities (click here). In the World’s Top-25 universities, there is a lower predominance of private universities, with 11 out of 25 universities being private.

Endowment An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that the World’s Top-25 universities have accumulated a massive amount of endowment wealth (a total of $170 billion) and the private universities in the US have accumulated more wealth than the public universities. A large university endowment supports the operating budget of a university (for example, a third of Harvard University’s operating budget comes from endowment income).

Age An AllAboutUni.com assessment found that the age of a university was not associated with being in the World's Top-25 universities (click here). Two good examples of 'young' universities achieving a high ranking are Stanford University (established in 1891 and ranked 2nd) and the University of California - San Diego (established in 1960 and ranked 14th).

Other factors Other factors that will determine the ranking of a university include: the university infrastructure (campus, facilities, etc.), the working conditions (academic salaries, academic freedom, etc.), the levels of funding (public and private funding) and the quality of life in the region where the university is located. Conclusion A series of AllAboutUni.com assessments has identified a number of general characteristics that help make a top university. The very strong performance of private universities in the World's Top-10 universities (7 out of 10) suggests that private universities are better able manage the different factors and etablish a top university.

The Impact of the Committee System on University Management in Benue State of Nigeria

Introduction
The Senate is the highest academic body in the university system with the Vice-Chancellor as its chairman. Its authority covers all academic matters although some, such as appointments, are shared with council. It is Senate that has the formal authority under the university's charter and status to make academic policy. Therefore, for it to take meaningful decisions it has to create certain committees. Council is the governing body of the University and is the formal employer of all university staff. It is charged with the general control and superintendent of the Policy, Finance and Property of the University. University employees are required under the leadership of the Vice-Chancellor to carry out Councils policies. To that extent the Vice-Chancellor may be seen as "Chief Executive". He is supported by the Registrar who is responsible for the university's academic and administrative supportive services.
The use of committees was entrenched in the Laws/Acts establishing Nigerian Universities as indicated in the University of Ibadan Act of 1962 which states that: "Anybody or persons established by the Act shall without prejudice of the generality, shall have power to appoint committees consisting of members of that body and subject to the provisions of sub-section(7) of section four of this Act to authorize committee established by it to exercise, on its behalf, such of its functions as it may determine". In the management of higher institutions, committees play very important roles in the decision making process. This is because as democratic establishments, universities' decisions on governance must reflect the opinion of a cross section of the staff if such decisions are to be accepted. This explains why many institutions in the country have established many committees to assist management in arriving at useful and meaningful decisions that can facilitate the proper management and growth of the university system of education.
Ede (2000), describes universities as international communities engaged in the daily business of the search for knowledge and truth. Ogunmodede (1981), states that authority of governance of Nigerian Universities is derived from an external source – The Visitor, who invariably is the president in the case of a Federal University and the Governor in the case of a State University. According to Daudu (1986), the management of such complex organization requires participation through the committee system because of the bureaucratic, collegial and political models that are applicable in them.
Nwachukwu {1988}, describes a committee as a device for achieving coordination of activities and sharing information among various departments and divisions of an organizations. He further states that committee decisions help to promote better coordination in an organization. Ikenwe (1998), highlighting the work of Foxworthy (1971), wrote that the primary motive of instituting the committee system in institutional governance has grown out of the motive concern for democratizing decision making in those institutions and a recognition of the need for more broadly based decision making as universities become more complex. This explains why many institutions in the country established many committees to assist its management in arriving at useful and meaningful decisions that can facilitate the proper management and growth of the university system of education.
In view of the importance of the committee system in university management, it is therefore necessary to investigate its impact on the effective and efficient management of the university system in Benue State of Nigeria.

Statement of the Problem
There have been frequent cries by some members of the university community that the committee system may not necessarily be the best method of effectively managing a university system. These staff members argue that the disadvantages of the committee system on university management appear to out weigh the advantages. Various segments of the staff have severally expressed their grievances, some violently and others peacefully over non implementation of committee decisions. These crises negate effective management of higher institutions. There is therefore the need to investigate this problem

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate how effectively committees affect university management in Benue State of Nigeria. Specifically, the study is concerned with the level of staff participation in the various committees and their confidence and trust in these committees and their importance in the management of the university system.

Research Questions
The following questions were answered by the study:-
(i) Does the committee system improve decision making process in the universities?
(ii) Does the committee system lead to greater participation of members of staff in the university community?
(iii) Do decisions made by committees instill greater confidence in the university community?
(iv) Do committees provide effective advisory services to Vice- Chancellors?
(v) Do committees' recommendations influence opinion of the university council and senate towards proper management of the institutions?

Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were formulated:-
(i) The committee system will not significantly lead to the participation of a higher number of staff in university management.
(ii) The committee system will not significantly improve decision making process in university management.
(iii) The committee system will not significantly instill greater confidence in the university.
(iv) The committee system will not significantly influence university management.

Methodology
The population of the study was made up of the staff members of the two universities in Benue State of Nigeria. The stratified random sampling technique was adopted for this study because of the large population involved. The population was therefore arranged into five sub-groups or strata. This helped to ease data collection and analyses. In effect, the study samples consist of 203 members of senior staff, 109 members bringing the total to 312 drawn from the study sample. The study used one structured questionnaire for the 312 respondents. The adopted Likert Four Point rating scale of 4, 3, 2, and 1, was used to analyze responses in the questionnaire.

Method of Data Analysis
The mean, standard deviation and t-test were used to verify results and arrive at certain conclusions. A mean of 2.50 was used as cut-off point of decision making for each item on the instrument. Any item with a mean of 2.50 and above was considered adequate and hence enhances the level of respondents on the use of committees in university governance. Any item with a mean of 2.50 and above was considered adequate and hence enhances the level of respondents on the use of committees in university governance. Any item with a mean of less than 2.50 was considered inadequate. The four hypotheses formulated for this study were tested at 0.05 level of significance using student t-test for each. Where the calculated value is greater than the table value of t at 0.05 level of significance, the null was not accepted. On the other hand, if the calculated value is less than the table value of t at 0.05 level of significance, the null hypotheses was accepted. After subjecting the responses to the above statistical methods and analyses, three out of the four null hypotheses were not accepted, while the fourth was accepted.

Hypotheses One
The committee system will not significantly lead to the participation of a large number of staff in university management.
Assumptions
N1 5
X1 15.25
S1 4.35
N2 6
X2 5.99
S2 2.80
df 6 Cal-t
cal.t Value 2.85 Table
table Value 2.45
Decision

Do not accept.

The result of the first hypothesis as shown above clearly indicates that the committee system encourages participation of a large number staff. Tahir (1991), agrees with this finding as he states that leadership must evolve styles that can ensure effective staff and student participation in decision making that affect them. Gwary (1993), also maintained that full participation is a process where each individual member of a decision making body has equal power to determine the outcome of the decision. This means that the use of participatory system of governance in the university system cannot be overemphasized. There must be full participation of individuals who are effective and efficient so as to help the growth of the committee system in university governance. It is then therefore worthy to mention that staff participation in the decision that affects their working lives is essential for effective management.

Hypotheses Two
The committee system will not significantly improve decision making process in university governance
Assumptions
N1 8
X1 24.62
S1 6.82
N2 7
X2 14.90
S2 6.20
df 13
Cal-tValue2.674
TableValue2.15
DecisionDo not accept.
<
In the table above, since the calculated t value is higher than the table value, we therefore do not accept the hypothesis. This finding reveals that the committee system is a vital tool for improving decision making process in university management. This finding is in line with Jeje (1983), who states that committees bring about group judgment on an issue, thereby protecting the university or chief executive from errors arising out of the decision of an individual.

Hypotheses Three
The committee system will not significantly instill confidence in the university system.
Assumptions
N1 9
X1 27.87
S1 7.62
N2 7
X2 15.28
S2 6.44
df 14
Cal-tValue 3.279

TableValue2.15
DecisionDo not accept

This finding reveals that there will exist trust and confidence if the committee decisions are faithfully implemented. All cadres of staff are of the opinion that committees would however tend to ignore the views of staff if they are in conflict with those of the university administration. Mehendiratta (1984), in his study on university administration in India and USA states that it would be advisable for the university system itself to device an adequate machinery to deal with grievances of students, teachers, subordinate staff and administrators and this machinery should be so devised that all persons concerned would have confidence in its impartiality and independence.

Hypothesis four
The committee system will not significantly influence university management.
Assumptions
N1 8
X1 24.38
S1 6.75
N2 8
X2 16.38
S2 7.41
df 14
Cal-t
Table
DecisionAccept.


The finding reveals that the committee system will not influence university management. This is because the respondents agree that committees do not provide effective advisory services to Vice-Chancellors, and that committee recommendations will not influence opinions of the university council and senate. What this result shows is that even though the university community believes that committees are vital tools for university governance, they are not confident that university administration will really implement the recommendations of committees. This also shows that there exist lack of trust between the university community and the university administration. It is pertinent to ask why a staff who is found worthy of promotion in the Departmental appointment and promotions committee be denied promotion by the council appraisal and promotions committee. Explanations would also be needed as to why a student who is found guilty of examination malpractice is rusticated by the College/Faculty examination malpractice committee however when the same case gets to senate, such a student is expelled. One wonders therefore why these committees are set up to look into these cases when decisions made by them are not implemented. Suffice it to say that because of administrative interest in these matters, decisions made by these committees are jettisoned. These actions negate the purpose of setting up these committees and also breed distrust in the system. Sifuna (1991), states that the tendency for Vice-Chancellors to monopolize all aspects of decision making has now been perfected in the creation of Vice-Chancellors 'management boards' whose powers are too wide and constantly erode those of the senate. Views or decisions of committees are ignored if they are in conflict with those of administration. He further states that although universities teach about democracy and are quite vocal about the need for popular participation in decision-making, universities' administrative structures and key policy-making bodies are most undemocratic.

Conclusion and Recommendations
Universities the world over are established for the propagation, dissemination and the application of knowledge. The university system is made up of people with investigative and critical minds with the function of teaching, research and public service, dedicated to intellectual life and hence the need for a democratic system and consequently the introduction of the committee system of governance. The study has identified that staff of BSU and UAM are not as confident as they would like to be in the committee system. This is as a result of the non-implementation of committee recommendations in university governance. There is therefore the need for the university administration to effectively and efficiently implement committee recommendations so as to boost the confidence of staff in the system. University administration should further find a way to create conditions for trust to exist within the university community as there is a lot to gain in a trusting environment.
Tierney (1999), in his paper on Trust and Academic Governance opines that if individuals are to make far-reaching decisions they need to create the conditions for trust to exist. According to Longing (2002), institutional success at navigating the currents of higher education is the dependent on the effectiveness of governance structures and decision making processes. Still, governance and decision making as the subject of empirical research currently receives only moderate attention.
There is therefore the need for researchers to investigate more on how best to govern higher institutions to meet their desired goals without distrust. Universities must a evolve appropriate leadership styles and practices. Delegation and communication channels should be followed. Staff should be actively involved in decision making if they to be fulfilled and effective in following up decisions made. Participation will increase their level of out put. Recommendations made by committees should be accepted and implemented without delay so as to boost confidence in the system. There should be mandatory, introductory and refreshers courses/ seminars on the committee system for staff especially for junior staff members so as to understand what the committee system is all about as most of them do not know how the committee system operates.

References

Daudu P. (1986) Committee versus centralized system of managing Higher institution: A choice between participation and efficiency, Unpublished paper

Denga D. I. and Ali A. (1998) An introduction to research methods and statistics in education and social sciences, (3rd ed) Calabar, Nigeria, Rapid Educational Publishers Ltd.

Ede .S. A. (2000) Educational administration and management, Jos, Nigeria: Ichedum Publication Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria, Spectrum Books Ltd.

Gwary T. H. (1993) Participative strategies for higher education management: A case study of Federal College of Education,Yola. Education today, 6 (3).

Ikenwe E. (1988) The use of committees in Higher institutions in Bendel state. An unpublished thesis of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Jeje .A. (1983) The administration of faculties in University of Ife, An unpublished field attachment report for MPA degree, University of Ife.

Longing T.C. (2002) Institutional governance: A call for collaborative decision making in American higher education. Boston, MA Anker Publishing Co.

Nwachukwu .C. C. (1988) Management theory and practice, Onitsha, Africana- Feb Publishers Limited.

Ogunmodede A. (1981) The community system of the university of Ibadan Management. Unpublished M.ED dissertation, University of Ibadan.

Mehendiraratta P.R (1984) University administration in India and USA, New Delhi, Oxford and IBH Co

Sifuna D. N. (1997) The governance of Kenyan public Universities Nairobi, Lyceum ed. Consultants.

Tahir G. (1991) Higher education management in Nigeria, Change and pressure for change: unpublished paper.

Tierney W. G. (1999) Creating high performance in colleges and universities, Thousand Oaks, Ca. Sage Publications Inc.

Leicester is a First Class University With Strong Reputation in Teaching and Research