How contentious Indian schools issue panned out

By A Staff Reporter, Courtesy the Times of Oman

MUSCAT - With the majority of the old Indian school board members out and the remaining ones on the verge of resignation and/or non-resignation or having already resigned; the induction of new members and a general feeling of tranquillity being restored in this contentious issue, it is time to take stock. It is time to look into a situation that now seems to be on the verge of reaching an agreeable conclusion.

A cursory look would reveal that the whole issue was precipitated out of a misunderstanding of sorts. If actions were not taken at the heat of the moment and if the board members were not hasty enough to dash off letters to the number one Indian citizen in Oman, paying scant respect to his position and stature among the community and in fact all Indians here, this issue would have taken its normal course of action. In short, it would have resulted in a full change of guard at the helm only by next year.

But one thing led to the other and blames and counter blames followed. Soon enough both sides were found to be holding the wrong end of the stick for reasons best known to themselves. While the new incumbent at the Indian embassy thought it fit, responding to innumerable complaints, to embark on a fact-finding mission, the board and the committee members suddenly saw red. While some blame it on the media for bringing such issues out into the limelight, the fact remains that the media would
not have resorted to bring it forth to the public in the first place if not for the nature in which it progressed.

These were pure facts, and the incidents had indisputably occurred, prompting the media to bring it out to the open as it was in the general interest of the public.
Indian Ambassador K. M. Meena had stated much earlier that ever since he had embarked on this mission of 'transparency', and restructuring of the school management bodies, he was looking at it purely in terms of a principle. In fact, he was not even aware who the affected individuals would be wherein they were to go
out of the board. His move was motivated entirely by the common benefit of the community. In fact, he had given the option to the board members to step down voluntarily.

The ambassador was also concerned that the board members were busy in their own vocation and they were also top functionaries of the management committees of the schools. He was of the view that the board should contain many non-functionary members, which he felt would bring "fresh ideas" and vision back to its functioning.
Now, the prime reason for the embassy versus board dispute was the letter, which the board has sent in response to a letter from the ambassador.

While the contents of the letter mainly resorted to more of an angry outburst, the tragedy was that some of the salient points that it raised were missed in the hullabaloo that followed. Apparently, the former board members seem to have argued that out of the 80 members on the various community schools, only 10 are non-parents, which constitute 12.5 per cent of the total. Sixty were parents and 10, parents, when they joined.

Out of the 15 members in the board, seven were either parents or were parents on appointment and eight non-parents. Moreover, since the board was not a body that deals with the children, but deals with schools, therefore the requirement of parent qualification was not necessary, they argued. According to the board, there were only two who had exceeded their term of six years and that too because of various reasons.
Debating the issues raised by the ambassador, the board noted that except for the five members of the Indian School Darsait who had completed more than seven years, none of the other committee members has completed more than the tenure of six years. They noted that the ISD was a special case, as it was decided that the five would resign on a staggered basis. But, apparently, none of them has completed eight years as is permitted in special circumstances under the constitution, the board said.
They also noted that with regard to the Indian School Al Ghubra, Indian School Wadi Kabir and Indian School Sohar, the nominations are made by the operators of the schools.

This was done in agreement with the embassy and the board did not have any control over them. With regard to the auditing system, the board noted that it has been their endeavour that each and every community school maintain proper books of accounts and employ competent accountants to carry out this task. They have also encouraged schools to go for computerisation of accounts and develop suitable management information systems. Apart from two schools, most have updated accounts, they claimed.

The board has also appointed an internal auditor of its own last year, especially for the schools in the interior, they said. The ISM and the ISD, both have a full time internal auditor who reports directly to the management committee and is independent of the school management. All other schools are audited by the internal auditor of the board.
The community schools also had external auditors, appointed by the management committee of the schools or by the board in the case of schools in the interior, they noted, adding that the external audit was complete for the period March/June 2000 of all schools. As far as the chartered accountants were concerned, the board was of the view that only Indian firms practising in Oman should act as the external auditors.
Referring to an accusation in the media, the board noted that there are five Indian firms, and the partners of four of these were involved in the management of one school or the other. However, none of them was auditor of the school which he is a member, the board stressed.

As for the two firms, which audit the accounts of the schools in the interior, the board noted that they were appointed eight years ago, first as internal auditors and now as external auditors. They are appointed by the board and are not members of the auditee schools. They are, therefore, independent. The board stressed on this to underline the fact that there was nothing unethical in their appointment.

Moreover, the firms were doing the jobs at lower fees than would normally be charged to commercial enterprises, the board noted. As to the question of financial transparency, the board noted that the community schools were asked to display the audited accounts on the notice board for a period of one month from the date of signing the accounts.

And the financial reporting of the other schools, like the ISG, ISW and ISS, were not controlled by the board. This was so because these schools have given financial guarantees to the board and embassy and, therefore, responsible for their own financial management. With regard to the high fee structure of some of the schools, the board agreed that there were different fee structures at various schools. This was to facilitate parents to choose depending on their economic status, they said, adding that the school, which charged the highest fees, was also the one that was most sought
after, as it "was a preferred school for the high middle class expatriates".

Noting the measures taken to prevent frequent hikes, the board said it encouraged fund-raising programmes. It also constantly monitored the fees charged and noted that any increase or decrease was to be approved by the board. Referring to the community versus individual sponsor schools, the board said that the decision to permit individual sponsor or such schools was taken by the embassy (previous ambassadors) and not by the board.

And also there were agreements (other than financial) to ensure that such schools are accountable to the board. Quoting an article of the school constitution, the board said that they were the responsible authority before the local authorities concerned in all matters relating to the schools and the academy.

Distancing itself from any scandals like the issue of taking bribe for recruitment, the board categorically denied that it has not come across any incidence of any school committee member or staff accepting bribes or charging money for recruitment. The board also mentioned that they believed that if any changes should be made, it should be done in March, so that the status quo is maintained.

But, in its zeal in responding to the ambassador, the board also angrily lashed out against the ambassador's moves in a manner, which was largely viewed as not only unwarranted, but unpleasant. This was one of the main reasons for some members of the boards getting termination notices, and while there is still a dispute as to how honorary board members can be dismissed, the point is that much water has
flown under the bridge since these heated debates, sacking, resignations, etc. that now as far as most of the parents and the school officials are concerned, they are more interested in looking ahead than behind, as long as it was for the betterment of the institutions, which in fact have weathered all these storms, and are still standing, as though ready for more.

New board members call on ambassador

By A Staff Reporter, Courtesy the Times of Oman.

MUSCAT - The Indian embassy's transparency drive has reached a special milestone when the new board members met the Indian ambassador in a cordial atmosphere to discuss various issues. The issues that have become a raging controversy and hot topic among the community members were discussed. Kiran Asher, the chairman of the board of directors of Indian schools in Oman, was also present. Although he has submitted his resignation, the embassy is yet to accept it. Asher is believed to have resigned to give a free hand to the embassy in its transparency drive. It is also understood that other remaining board members were asked not to resign. The meeting focused on how to go ahead with the new board, formulate new plans and also achieve the high objectives of raising the standards of every school.
Copyright; Times of Oman, Muscat