The University of Aruba, home to the Aruba Institute for Good Governance & Leadership, is facing growing scrutiny over its own internal governance practices. Despite its mission to promote strong public and corporate leadership, recent developments raise serious questions about how effectively the university is managed.
As outlined in Part 1, the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Financial and Economic Studies (FEF) has reportedly lost its administrative direction. Ultimately, responsibility for ensuring proper governance lies with the university’s Board, which commissioned a professional investigative report following concerns over the replacement of the Teaching and Examination Regulations (OER).
The findings of the report are troubling. It concludes that arbitrary rule changes have created the impression that the faculty lacks sufficient legal knowledge. The report also notes that the dean frequently refers to decisions that were never formally documented, exposing weaknesses in authority, record-keeping, and the council’s ability to function as a legitimate governing body.
Even more concerning are testimonies from student representatives, who reported being ridiculed during meetings and feeling unsafe expressing their views. Such an environment directly contradicts the principles of academic freedom and inclusive governance.
These findings echo an earlier incident in which a complaint to the rectorate about a faculty regulation violation resulted in an official warning—issued not to the body that breached the rules, but to the individual who reported the violation. Critics argue that this response discourages whistleblowing and undermines the core values of transparency and accountability.
While some of the university’s governing legislation is outdated—referring to courses that no longer exist—this does not justify ignoring binding governance requirements. As a publicly funded institution, the University of Aruba remains legally obligated to comply with its own regulations. Failure to enforce them reflects a serious breakdown in oversight.
Official minutes from faculty council meetings further reveal questionable practices, including attempts to rely on so-called “customary law” to bypass formal regulations, followed by votes to legitimize those actions. Observers say this demonstrates a lack of respect for the authority of the university’s Board, which is legally responsible for upholding governance standards.
Despite these concerns, the FEF’s educational and professional quality remains strong. However, faculty council membership does not require governance expertise, leaving much of the responsibility in the hands of part-time lecturers. The removal of experienced lecturers and their representatives has resulted in control by a narrow majority—sufficient to pass decisions, but lacking the expertise needed to effectively manage the faculty or resist initiatives driven by personal interests rather than institutional priorities.
The situation has now escalated with the appointment of an unqualified dean, described by critics as effectively serving the interests of this narrow council majority. With the university Board failing to intervene, even in cases of serious regulatory violations, observers warn that the faculty faces long-term institutional risk unless decisive corrective action is taken.
Photo Credits : https://english.24ora.com/?penci_spp_count=1&penci_spp_post_id=
