Editorial

The appointment by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, of Charles Farrugia as the University Ombudsman is welcome news indeed. It should also be welcomed by the rest of the tertiary sector because Prof. Farrugia's remit for the first time includes other institutions such as the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (Mcast) and the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS).

The Office of University Ombudsman is covered by the Education Act, which stipulates that the official is appointed for a term of five years by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The person thus appointed has a very wide range of responsibilities. He has the duty to investigate and report on any complaint by students and academic staff or employees of the University on matters related to the University as well as complaints by persons who have been refused entry into the University and to suggest redress. Complainants who have exhausted this remedy may still take their complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Prof. Farrugia is a former professor, dean and pro-Rector of the University and a respected one at that. He knows the institution inside out. His appointment should give a new life to an important function that was not functioning anywhere near the level of efficiency that should be expected from such an office.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman in his address to the media after the appointment of Prof. Farrugia said that it is unacceptable that in an institution attended by some 10,000 students, only 20 complaints a year were lodged.

One can, of course, only agree with the statement by the ombudsman, although an important proviso ought to be added. The appointment of a University Pro-Rector for Student and Institutional Affairs brought with it a marked improvement in the way the University tackles complaints and grievances. The incumbent of the post has built a reputation for tackling complaints in a fair, effective and efficient matter.

This parenthesis closed, it must still be pointed out that experience has shown a weak management of the Office of the University Ombudsman. Prof. Farrugia now has the hard task of increasing the visibility of the office and assuring people of its efficiency. Most people at the University do not have a clear idea of what the office is all about and when and how one can complain. This is a major failing of the ombudsman, especially when one considers that the office has been set up for a number of years now.

Information should be followed by availability. Experience has shown that it was difficult to make effective contact with the office. A study commissioned by the University Students' Council (KSU) and published last August shows that the complier of the study, during the month of July - a period during which complaints are probable because of the publication of examination results - repeatedly tried to contact the ombudsman's office without any success.

Prof. Farrugia should see to it that the services of the office are easily available and this availability should be strengthened by a virtual presence though cyberspace.

Accessibility should be followed by alacrity and fairness. If this happens, more students and staff will pick up courage to complain. A study by KSU in 2002 showed that 44 per cent of the respondents claimed that they would be afraid of the consequences if they lodge a report.

One can only augur that this cycle of lack of information, accessibility and fear will be broken by Prof. Farrugia.