Tuesday, 26 September 2006

Ina Freeman's reply

My name is Ina Freeman. I left KIMEP after 7 months because of the lies that I had been told by administration in the hiring process...


1. I negotiated with Dr. Ewan Simpson (who was representing Dr. Rahman) for a wage of $40,000 per annum before I agreed to come to KIMEP. However, upon arriving at KIMEP, I was presented with a contract for $36,000. Dr. Jack Hinton (the Interim Dean of the School of Business) and Dr. Ewan Simpson (then Chair of the Management and Marketing Department) had to fight with Dr. Rahman to regain the loss of pay I was promised by KIMEP prior to my arrival. I did not sign any contractual agreement until more than two weeks after I was already teaching because of this breach.

2. Within one month of arriving at KIMEP, I was told I was to assume the Associate Chair position with the Department of Management and Marketing, but because classes were already in process, I did not get course load relief or reimbursement for assuming this responsibility. According to KIMEP policy, I should have received a teaching load relief to teach only three courses, not four, or monetary reimbursement. I asked Dr. Hinton and Dr. Simpson about compensation and was told KIMEP could not cancel a class but would compensate me later. I was told I would have to continue to teach a full course load with the promise of compensation at the end of term.

3. During May 2005, I asked for a holiday in July 2005 and was denied permission. I submitted my resignation in compliance with Kazakhstani law at the end of June; that is, I would leave one calendar month after submitting my resignation (leave the end of July 2005). Dr. Robert Robertson had to fight with Dr. Rahman regarding my pay because Dr. Rahman did not want to pay my July salary. Dr. Rahman also refused to pay the extra amount due under Kazakhstani law for the extra course load I carried, for the period I acted as the Associate Chair of the department, as well as holiday pay to which I was legally entitled.

4. At the time of negotiating my contract, Dr. Rahman and Dr. Bang knew that the government of Kazakhstan was preparing to implement a law wherein all salaries were to be paid in tenge. I was not told about this; I was told I would be paid in American Dollars. In fact, on the original contract that offered $36,000, the contract specified I would be paid in American Dollars. The subsequent contract with $40,000 did not make that provision and although I again complained this was against the original negotiations, Dr. Rahman came to my office and stated that KIMEP had no option as it was Kazakhstani law, which is reasonable but totally ignored the issue that I was lied to and would lose money as a direct result of this.

5. Dr. Bang insists that I signed another contract in June 2005, when in fact this is a blatant lie. Dr. Bang is quoted as saying that my salary was "increased by 10% in June 2005." I submitted my resignation the end of June 2005 with every intention of leaving and although I was offered another contract with an increase of 5 percent, I never signed it because I was leaving.

6. I NEVER said my son was ill. Dr. Rahman has quoted me as saying that my "son, who had serious health problem, was left alone in his home country." In fact, my son was not ill and has never experience serious health problems. He is, and was at that time, an adult who is gainfully employed in my home country. Dr. Rahman is perpetrating another fabrication. The reality is that I submitted my resignation because I was not prepared to deal with the lies and deceit perpetrated on staff, students, and students' parents any longer. I gave notice under Kazakhstani law as KIMEP had already abrogated my contract by not living up to the terms of the contract.

It is time that Dr. Bang, Dr. Rahman, and Dr. Green, Dean of Student Affairs, start to speak the truth and not try to manipulate the Kazakhstani people to their advantage. It is time that Dr. Bang, Dr. Rahman, and Dr. Green start to address the issues and stop the personal attacks. The primary issue is the enormous turn-around of academic staff at KIMEP, both foreign and Kazakhstani professors. The fact is that the turn-over rate for the Dean of Bang College of Business is four deans in two years. The fact is that every year, the Bang College of Business must hire large numbers of new faculty because professors leave. This is the reality that KIMEP needs to address, not the personal attacks that take the focus away from the issue.

Monday, 18 September 2006

Pat Gunning's reply

In the story published in the Megapolis newspaper, KIMEP's Vice President of Academic Affairs Habib Rahman is quoted as saying that I lied when I wrote that "Many specialists fulfilled an additional work after KIMEP with consent of Khabib Rakhman had promised them to pay for it and had not paid. KIMEP deprived me of four months salary and bonuses. It is about 20-30,000 dollars". This is the first time in my recent memory that someone has accused me of lying.

Pat Gunning's reply to the statements made by the Administration in Megapolis

In the story published in the Megapolis newspaper, KIMEP's Vice President of Academic Affairs Habib Rahman is quoted as saying that I lied when I wrote that "Many specialists fulfilled an additional work after KIMEP with consent of Khabib Rakhman had promised them to pay for it and had not paid. KIMEP deprived me of four months salary and bonuses. It is about 20-30,000 dollars". This is the first time in my recent memory that someone has accused me of lying.

Rahman himself is the liar. One of the first things I heard after I arrived at KIMEP was that I could not trust Rahman's promises. After I was abruptly fired from KIMEP in December 2005 and began to make contacts with others like myself, it became clear that the lies and fraud committed by KIMEP toward me were in many respects similar to those of at least fifteen others who had either been fired or voluntarily left KIMEP. These "specialists" told tales of doing extra work on the basis of promises made by Rahman or Bang and then being told that the money would not be paide. In other words, they told tales of fraud. Thus, the lies and fraud committed by Rahman can be traced back to the time at which he came to KIMEP. Since Chan Young Bang is his direct boss, Bang himself is responsible for these as well. So also are their colleagues Steven Green and former Kazakhstan minister of education Mr. Bilyalov, since they are aware of most or all of these lies and fraud and since they either actively participate in them or condone them. In the following, I will show that each one of Rahman's statements is either (1) a complete distortion, (2) a misrepresentation, or (3) a self-serving lapse of memory. Let me say also, however, that anyone who wants to find out whether Rahman or I am a liar only needs to go to KIMEP and chat privately with my former Kazakhstani colleagues in the economics department.

Rahman writes: "Now professors of this level are paid 75-80,000 dollars taking into consideration an indexation...In a month after he was accepted on his position, he started saying in an informal environment that Kazakhstan is a bad country, that the administration pays low salaries to Kazakh citizens, and that KIMEP accepts many local specialists who lack qualification."

1. My contractual pay was US$65,000. But I received less because KIMEP paid in TENGE and used a low rate of exchange. This was a bait an switch tactic, it seemed to me. Rahman baited me with $65,000. Then after I agreed through email to accept, he sent a contract in which the pay was denominated in Tenge at the low exchange rate. Since several days had passed, I missed other opportunities in the job market.

2. I never said that Kazakhstan is a bad country. On the contrary, I regard it as a delightful country. Indeed until I learned how nasty Rahman, Bang, and Steven Green could be, I was pleased with my role at KIMEP also.

3. I did make the other comments. I made them in front of the Department of Economics at a formal department meeting at the time that I announced my resignation as Department Chair, which I had agreed reluctantly, at Rahman's request, to be (see below). Thus the remarks in question were not made informally.

4. I did say that KIMEP pays low salaries to economists in relation to other universities. This fact is obvious to everyone.

5. I did say that a substantially larger proportion of economics courses are taught by teachers with masters degrees than at other comparable universities and that these teachers are from Kazakhstan and relatively inexpensive to hire. As M.A., they obviously lack the formal qualifications that are possessed by Ph.D.s. I said this and it is true. However, it was not meant to be demeaning. In fact, I followed it with praise for these teachers. I attributed the superior quality of the economics program at KIMEP at the time mostly to these teachers. The reason is that (a) for the most part the foreign economists only stay for a short time at KIMEP and (b) the teachers in the economics department maintain high standards for student achievement and have a strong sense of duty and honor.

6. The essence of these remarks are on a set of power point slides which were presented at a department meeting that I called. I will be happy to make them available.

7. I was told by the Dean that the power point presentation was forwarded to Bang, who became very angry when he saw it. Upon hearing this, I tried in vain to arrange an appointment with Bang to discuss his reaction. He refused to meet with me at any time after I made the presentation despite my numerous requests to do so.

Rahman's statement is a combination of misrepresentation and distortion.

Rahman writes: "Then Pat Gunning refused to teach those courses which were in KIMEP program and which student chose for themselves....In order for students to pass the examination, the administration made a decision to pay him a particular amount of bonus. Why did he ask for additional payment? Because a professor of the same department, Sabit Kakimzhanov, was sick and the administration asked Dr. Gunning to teach several classes instead of him. Dr. Gunning came to a classroom and said that Mr. Kakimzhanov is sick but I will not teach class instead of him. So he asked additional payment just for the fact that he let students go."

This statement implies that I asked to be paid for work that I did not do. That is untrue.

1. In an email written by Rahman during the summer when he was trying to persuade me to come to KIMEP, he wrote that my teaching load would be 6-9 hours and that I would not be required to be a Department Chair. He paid a higher salary to me than that of other faculty (but lower than the international market). He offered these benefits in order to persuade me to come to KIMEP. When I arrived, I was scheduled to teach only 6 hours per week, which was consistent with this email. Rahman immediately asked me to be Department Chair and I declined. During the first week of the semester, the department was in such disarray due to office renovation and also due to the absence of a permanent Chair, that I reluctantly agreed to take the job. Rahman was very pleased with this. During the next 8 weeks, I worked 70-80 hours per week learning about the department, its faculty, and various other things that are required to be a responsible Chair.

2. I was especially concerned about the faculty shortage in our department and urged Rahman to make it possible to hire some additional people. If someone got sick, I reasoned, we may not be able to cover the courses. After about the 5th week, one of the Ph.D. faculty who was critical to the program (Dr. Kakimzhanov) was injured in an accident and hospitalized for several weeks.

3. I frantically sought replacements and arranged for all but one of his three courses to be taught. Each of the substitutes was promised overload pay for their additional work. In the meantime I met the third class a couple of times and kept in touch with the students about the future as I tried to arrange a replacement. When it became impossible to find a replacement, I reluctantly agreed to take the course myself, but only if I was given overload pay for the job. Rahman first refused, then delayed. After teaching one class, I refused to teach it again until or unless I received a promise from Bang himself for overload pay. The administration again delayed consideration of this refusal. As a result several classes were cancelled as the students and I waited for Rahman to act. There were a couple of high level meetings, I was told, although I was not invited to any of these. Ultimately Bang promised to pay and I agreed to teach the overload, as the others had done. There is a paper trail detailing each of the several events that occurred during this period. It shows that I was very concerned about the class not having a teacher but also that I was not willing to take on the extra burden unless I was paid. It also demonstrates the administration's procrastination or inefficiency in dealing with the problem promptly.

4. The reason that I demanded a promise from Bang is that Rahman had reneged on an earlier promise when I accepted his offer to be Chair. He has promised to allow me to appoint an Associate Chair to reduce the burden of work on me. When I submitted my recommendation of Dr. Khakimzhanov, he disapproved and indicated that no one could be placed in this job. Simply put, I had no reason to trust Rahman to keep his promise to pay. I should also say that I was aware of other instances in which faculty had not received pay that was promised by Rahman for extra work. So I demanded the pay at a higher level.

5. The reason I demanded pay for this work is that, with reference to the offer that Rahman made me in his summer email and also with reference to the contract, I was being asked to do more work than we had agreed upon.

6. I did not refuse to teach; I refused to teach without just compensation. I never asked to be paid for courses that I did not teach. And when I taught, I did so in a conscientious and professional way. Every class for which I was given overload pay was met for the full meeting period.

Rahman's statement is a distortion of the truth and a misrepresentations of facts.

Rahman writes: "He also started coming with his wife to work, a citizen of China or Vietnam. The whole day she was spending at his office. As a result, students were shy to come to personal consultations, professors and administrators were also shy to discuss some confidential issues in her presence. In other words, he appeared to be not the person who was expected to take this position."

1. My wife, a Taiwanese university graduate and businesswoman, did come frequently to my office, although I do not recall her spending an entire day. Mostly, and almost entirely at the beginning of the semester, she came for a couple of hours to use the internet connection so that she could stay in touch with family and friends and business contacts. She did not come every day. I had asked Rahman for permission for her to do this and he agreed. Nor was it uncommon for this to occur. In particular, the wife of Dr. Dana Stevens, a close associate of Bang, Rahman, and Green, is widely known to use the internet connection in his office.

2. After the first three weeks or so, most of my wife's internet use in my office was to assist me. Lacking an Associate Chair and having an extensive workload to get up to speed, as it were, I needed assistance to avoid falling behind in my research. Her task was to organize my internet research materials and, to do so, she occasionally needed comments from me. Moreover, during the same period, my wife was hired by KIMEP, but KIMEP provided no computer facilities for her work. She spent a couple of full days in my office during that period doing KIMEP business. I might add that KIMEP refused to pay her for those hours until I had written several memos. She worked in September and was finally paid in February. After I resigned as Chair in mid-semester, my wife seldom came to KIMEP except for a dance class in the evenings. She had completed the project of helping me and was disgusted with the fact the KIMEP had not paid her for work already performed.

3. My wife was not even in Kazakhstan for my last three weeks as Chair and the first week after I resigned. She left in late September and returned in late October.

4. My relationship with students was excellent. The idea that they would shy away from visiting my office for any reason is absurd.

5. Ordinarily, if my wife was present at a time that a consultation was in order, I asked her to leave or I went to a different place.

Rahman misrepresents the facts about my wife spending the whole day, he conveniently neglects to say that he gave his permission for her to do this, and he speculates about consultations that he knows very little about. His implication that I neglected my duties in order to provide services for my wife at the office is a lie. Recall that I was spending 70-80 hours a week working while I was Chair.

Rahman writes: "Taking into consideration the fact that he had the leading position at his department, the administration wanted him to participate in further development of the economics department and help local staff to increase their qualification. But he refused to do anything in this direction explaining it by the fact that he is too significant in order to go to insignificant meetings."

During my period as Chair, I met with practically every faculty member. Not only did I offer to work together with them on projects and to consult with them on their own professional development, I did in fact consult with several, providing them with feedback on their work and references for future professional development. After I resigned as Department Chair, I arranged for a group of faculty to study a particular subject in Economics -- economic growth. In other words, I led a study group of the younger faculty, practically all of whom thanked me; since this had not been done before. During my stay, I attended and participated vigorously in practically all of the bi-weekly Saturday morning seminars organized by Bang to help make KIMEP more visible to the community. I did these things not because of what the administration expected but because it was the most appropriate way to participate in a team effort. As such, I regarded it as a professional responsibility.

Rahman's states alleged facts that are just the opposite of what occurred. He is either misinformed or he has deliberately lied.

Rahman writes: "In December when students were to pass final exams, Pat Gunning suddenly and without any justification required to increase his salary, refused to teach any courses and promised to leave Almaty in case if we do not pay him sum greater than stipulated by contract. In other words, he was blackmailing the university administration."

In October, I was promised money by Bang for teaching an overload, as described above. Yet KIMEP did not include any addition to my pay in October and also in November. So I asked my Dean to find out the reason for this omission. He acted quickly and informed me that Rahman had decided not to pay until I made a formal request beyond the requests that had already been made and approved. Upon hearing this nonsense, I threatened to fly out on the next plane if Bang did not immediately pay me as he had promised to do. Bang responded by paying the money and I continued to teach. The threat was public. Everyone on the KIMEP email list read the threat. And, after Bang paid, everyone learned that he paid.

By the way, Bang, through Green, paid me in cash and expressed a deep apology on Bang's part. Clearly, however, Bang and Green were lying about being apologetic. Green handed me nine one-hundred-dollar bills.

Why did I make this threat? Since Bang refused to meet with me and since Rahman had refused to pay as promised, I saw no other way to deal with the issue. As mentioned above, this was overload pay that had been promised. It was not "a sum greater than stipulated in the contract." And it was not a bonus.

I might add that the money was not worth the time and I knew that when I agreed to teach the overload. I accepted this assignment in order to allow the students enrolled in the course to complete it, not because I could earn money.

Rahman conveniently omits the circumstances that preceded the events he described and particularly his own role in not authorizing the payment of the money that Bang agreed to pay. There was no request or demand to increase my salary. I demanded only to be paid for work already performed and for which a promise of payment had been made by Bang. I made the demand because Rahman and Bang's were attempting to defraud me.

"Taking into consideration such unprofessional behavior and unjustified claims, the university administration decided to terminate the contract in January instead of June. At the same time, the decision was made not only by Dr. Bang and Dr, Rahman personally, but by the committees called at the college, department and the whole university. Professor was paid for December, January and for two months above and otpuskniye in order just to, generally speaking, get rid of him. He did not work in February, March, April, May and June that is why he thinks we underpaid him 20-30,000 dollars."

KIMEP served an eviction notice to me on the same day that I turned in my final grades, December 22, three days before Christmas. Both Rahman and Bang had already left town. The notice was served by Green. In subsequent actions, Green was backed by Dr. Bilyolov, former Kazakhstan minister of education. The eviction notice violated the KIMEP contract and completely circumvented KIMEP's own Faculty Code of Practice which, according to the contract, is the ruling document in such cases. No college committee or department committee was involved in the decision to my knowledge. The whole process was manipulated by Rahman who hastily brought together a partial college committee that is designated in the KIMEP Faculty Code for a different purpose. A number of people who, according to KIMEP regulations, are required to participate in such a process were either deliberately excluded or refused to participate.

Regarding the money, KIMEP paid me for work performed up until December 22, when they evicted me. In addition, they claimed to pay one additional month. The money I actually received for that month was several percentage points below the amount that was owed. When I asked for an explanation, Bang and his agents refused to reply. Rahman seems to claim that I was paid for two additional months. If that is what he actually said, he is lying or simply does not know the facts.

Why did I claim that KIMEP owes me that amount of money? The contract specifies that one party can break the contract without proper justification only with four month's notice. KIMEP failed to provide proper justification according to the contract and according to its own Faculty Code of Practice. In fact, my contract was for four years and Rahman personally assured me during the previous summer that I would not have to worry about the four-month clause. I specifically expressed concern to him about this in an email before signing the contract. Thus the amount that KIMEP owes me morally is over US$200,000. But Rahman is not a moral person.

Rahman misrepresents a series of facts. Most important, KIMEP terminated the contract on December 22 with an eviction notice and a threat to call the police if I did not leave my office and the grounds of the university. Almost as important, the eviction and the way it was justified broke the contract that KIMEP made with me. It was the culmination of a fraud that had begun during the emails from Rahman in the summer 2005.

As owner of the corporation in Kazakhstan, Bang has the right under Kazakhstan law to fire anyone on the spot, so long as he gives a month's severance pay. At least this is what my Russian-speaking lawyer told me. He did that to me. But KIMEP also signed a contract with me. Under that contract Bang does not have this right. He must abide by the terms of the contract and the Faculty Code of Practice. The contract requires four month notice except under specific conditions that KIMEP did not meet. Thus, Bang broke the contract it made with me. Moreover, in light of the KIMEP's use of the contract to lure me to KIMEP and in light of other statements made to my by Rahman in emails intended also to lure me to KIMEP, Bang defrauded me. This blatant violation of my contract and fraud is just one of numerous instances of similar behavior that has occurred over the history of KIMEP.

But what foreigner in his or her right mind would stick around Almaty to sue?

Finally, let me say that I can provide written documents to prove practically everything I have written. I am a meticulous collector. If you do not believe me, then you are welcome to ask me for documentation.

Pat Gunning

Sunday, 17 September 2006

Former Dean comments

Wailings and Lamentations Upon Those that Question KIMEP
(A very former Dean of Student Affairs and Provost Marshal)

As a former, dissatisfied, employee anything I have to say is by all means biased. However, I join with the numerous others speaking out to try and bring some order to chaos.

It has often seemed odd to me that colleges and universities will teach business, and yet, not actively apply what they teach to their students. Any suggestions that KIMEP is a well run business lacks a basic knowledge of the principles of business. For example - turnover to retention ratio, the number of employees retained vs. those that have left. How many Deans (Academic & Student Affairs) have come and gone in the last seven years? It was stated that the administration has highly qualified people from the best universities - okay, publish the credentials of the administration! Let's have a look and let's check the veracity of the information.

Dr. Rahman, truly a power to be reckoned with, states that the reason many professors, and we can include administration, have left KIMEP is due to poor cross-cultural adaptation skills. At the successful conclusion of a position with an organization in Almaty, I wrote a short text / workbook requested by local professors I knew. This work was on organizational behavior, and was called "Change the Environment - Change the Behavior". Cross-culture issues formed a strong foundation for this text. While adaptation skills do play a significant role in expat failure I can say that from both a professional and personal basis that it is NOT the predominant factor at KIMEP. The real factor involved is precisely what has been previously indicated - intimidation, poor management, misrepresentation and a heavy dose of "office politics"!

It is easy to claim transparency in all matters at KIMEP. They sure do play fast and lose with that one. During my brief tenure as Dean and a member of the executive committee I witnessed many astonishing things. How about that bid process with outside vendors for starters.

The new student / faculty cafeteria needed to be staffed and a call for bids was made. At one of several meetings of the executive committee on this topic Dr. Bang suddenly walked in. As a "member" of the committee he had every right to come - yet it was interesting as he never made an appearance while I was at KIMEP, only this one as I remember. Leadership of the committee was always with Dr. Rahman. On this occasion Bang wished to make his views known about the qualifications of the management for this new venture. He made the direct statement that in his view "only an MBA" would be appropriate to run the operation. Several bids were on the table. Of them only one offered a manager with an MBA, the bid from USKO. At the time, one Mr. Kambarov was the Director of Administration. After this meeting, in his zeal to score points with Dr. Bang, he wrote a letter immediately giving the contract to USKO. I was presented with this letter and was asked to sign, of course I refused. The next day another meeting was held. Dr Biyalov, the only other who had refused, suggested - to his credit - that the two top bidders be given a chance to propose a time frame upon which they could make their proposal operational. This showed a little more ethical practice to me and for my part agreed to his suggestion. USKO came back fast on the request and got the contract.

The point is that while the process does have the appearance of transparency what happens behind closed doors exerts a strange influence on the outcome. In my time there I could see no evidence of sustained or significant existence of other vendors besides USKO. For heavens sake, even the damned clocks on the walls have the USKO logo!!

KIMEP claims to have an "American" style of education. Having USKO so prominently represented in KIMEP constitutes a conflict of interest for Dr. Bang, administratively, financially and most certainly ethically! I thought American business methods shied away from a conflict of interest for its executive and managerial staff? So, how does ANY contract awarded to USKO not constitute a conflict of interest?

(Please see: http://www.research.vt.edu/conflict/Conflict_of_Interest.doc)

Oh, I'm sorry - this is Kazakhstan and U.S. business concepts, rules and regulations have no jurisdiction. Sorry, just way out of my league here I guess.

To those that passionately wish to see changes at KIMEP, I agree that only hard evidence can suffice. While the idea of an independent committee to investigate is good, you must also be extraordinarily cautious. My observation is that they do very well at covering tracks when they know who shall come and when. Hence, I believe, the gracious invitation by Bang for anyone to visit and see first hand the glory of KIMEP, or if I may say "Y'all come back now hear? - take your shoes off and set a spell".

Whenever there was a threat to public, funding source or government perceptions of KIMEP the executive committee wasted no time or effort to issue orders to staff for the purpose of creating a positive impression. The administration is especially paranoid of faculty and staff that "hurt" KIMEP through a "lack of loyalty". In one instance they froze the bank account of a teacher that quit in the middle of a semester (for health and dissatisfaction issues). She wrote often seeking her money, but they would not allow her any access to the account. I personally stepped in and made a little arrangement with someone to have a friend of the teacher in Almaty get to the bank and with a few hours window of opportunity, grab the cash before the bank "refreezes" the account. At KIMEP one becomes "creative" out of necessity in order to achieve equity and ethical practice!

If you want to get at the truth in KIMEP you can not "ask" for documentation. You WILL get what they want you to get, documentation that will render your accusation meaningless. You MUST anticipate that they have already taken steps to counter the moves you have made to date and will make with this committee. My own observation and direct experience is that they waste no time or effort to be proactive about accusations and to "produce" the evidence needed so that the complaint will be shown to be groundless or "misinformed". What you guys need is not committee members - you need a network of inside information (authenticated documents), unimpeachable witnesses, clear well documented, signed and notarized affidavits / testimony. I left KIMEP based upon ethics and principle. But you guys are fighting an uphill battle. Sorry to sound unethical but you need spies and whistle blowers. You need photocopy evidence, hidden camera interviews, photographic evidence or video that illustrates illegal or unethical behaviors and actions. Again, I truly dislike saying it but I cannot see that coming in through the front door will net you an end result as you intend.

Shortly before my departure from KIMEP, a member of the U.S. Embassy staff related to me that while other local universities may be stronger in academics or administration, KIMEP was the only game in town (referring to its Western or American style of education). It appears to still be the case. KIMEP is in sorry need of some other international competing institution that can kick it into reality for once in its life.

Whether saints or sinners, it is time for Dr. Bang and others to step aside and let the chips fall were they may. An autocratic model of organizational leadership while seeming to be appropriate in a post-Soviet environment era is teaching the students an extraordinarily BAD lesson in business and free market enterprise.

After so many years away from KIMEP I regret not being able to offer you more than my verbal support and good wishes. Move forcefully forward with a committee, get evidence that is unimpeachable - just make sure you get it behind their backs! Check Mate!

Monday, 11 September 2006

Article in Megapolis

There is a scandal in one of the most famous and expensive universities in the country, who can reach the world level - KIMEP. Five of its former foreign faculty members accuse the university administration of the oppression of faculty members, mismanagement and financial machinations...

Translation of article in Megapolis newspaper, issue 36, 11 Sep 2006 by Gulsum Kunelekova, Almaty

Professors Peyman Pejman (former adjunct professor of the Journalism and Mass Communication), Dr. William J. Hickey, Dr. Patrick Gunning (former head of KIMEP Economics Department), Michael McHugh (former head of Political Science Department) and professor Inna Freeman (Marketing Department) have expressed all accusations and claims in an Open Letter to the head of our country.

The USKO company indeed belongs to Dr. Bang

The Open Letter says KIMEP according to its charter has to be non-commercial organization but almost all construction and repair works have been conducted by the USKO Company controlled by Dr. Bang and his family. "KIMEP often publishes its contract bids in various newspapers, but almost all bids are won by the USKO, and there is no full independent audit of the buds procedure. For example, the cost of the recently finished library was about 3 m dollars but it could have been built by cheaper other companies.

It is absolutely wrong that all contracts are won by only one company, - KIMEP president Dr. Chan Young Bang replied. Out of 11 repair and construction projects conducted or recently finished on KIMEP campus only 2 are implemented by the USKO Company. The scrupulous procedure of the bid selection is established at KIMEP. An independent committee considers the applications and gives recommendations to the Executive Committee of KIMEP. If a project is connected to big investments, then the issue is considered by the KIMEP Council - the supreme management organ at the university level, which consists of professors, the university administration, employees and students.

At the same time, the most significant investments are a subject to the obligatory approval of the KIMEP Board of Trustees, which consists of leading businessmen, scientists and representatives of the Kazakh government (17 people in total), including the chairman of State Property Committee, the representative of the Almaty city administration, former and current National Bank chairmen Daulet Sembayev and Grigoriy Marchenko, the chairman of the US academic circles from San-Francisco University, the president of the Eurasian Foundation in Kazakhstan and the Citi Bank president.

All the members of KIMEP Board of Trustees have voted for the project as in their opinion USKO's suggestion was the best in terms of price and quality, - KIMEP vice president on academic affairs Dr. Khabib Rakhman added. - It is not true that the library could have been built for the lower price. We can provide documents, which prove that USKO's suugesstion is cheaper for 400,000 dollars then others. In total, three organizations have participated in the bid, including Almatykurylys

- And are you Mr. Rakhman a founder of USKO?

No, I am not a shareholder. The founder is Dr. Bang and he has a board of directors.

- And those three millions for construction or any other money for construction - are they state money or do fund raising from other sources?

In a majority, it is tuition income from tuition waiver.

- How many students are at KIMEP and what is an average price for education?

About 4000 students study now at KIMEP at all programs. The tuition fee for bachelors is about 4,000 annually in average, for masters - about 5,000. An annual KIMEP budget is around 18 m dollars, 80 % out of which are the salaries of professors. Moreover, foreign and local professors have the same salary level - from 40,000 to 85,000 dollars depending on their academic degree.
Churn Rate

- KIMEP top managers, whom Dr. Bang trusts, show serious disrespect in relation to foreign professors, - the Open Letter says. Contract conditions are changed when foreigners come to Kazakhstan. Salaries are decreased without any prior notice or justification. That is why many foreigners keep leaving KIMEP working at KIMEP only for awhile.

Contracts of the employees are subject to recurrent reconsideration and modification in order to correspond to the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and to international norm, - Dr. Bang said. - In 2005-2006 academic year salary at KIMEP has increased by 12.2%, and in 2006-2007 - by 10%. Around 600 professors and administrative employees work at KIMEP, in 2005-2006 academic year their number has increased by 9%. The churn rate is very low, only 7% of our professors and administrative employees left KIMEP this year.

The statement that decisions are made by a narrow circle of administrators is also absolutely wrong. We have the established procedures for recruiting, promotion and dismissal of employees which we strictly follow. Our system includes the consideration of every case by three committees of different level (college, department and university level), which consist of professors and administrators. Only four professors have been dismissed from KIMEP in last two years. Their activity did not correspond to the mission and the goals of our university.

- What is the reason for all these professors to lie?

Probably, it is not a lie but these professors might have misunderstood both in the country and at KIMEP because they have come to Kazakhstan not so long ago, - KIMEP vice president Dr. Rakhman said. - The problem with foreign professors is not money but in the fact that it is completely different country, different routine and culture for them. Some could not find place for themselves so they leave.

KIMEP strives to attract foreign professors but they usually come to Kazakhstan for less than 1-2 years as invited professors, - KIMEP student government president Madi Sarsenbayev said. We unfortunately have to admit the fact they are not going to spend the rest of their live in Kazakhstan and leave in case if more attractive fro aborad suggestion appears. Besides it, it is very hard to discuss working conditions with foreign professors and to suggest them salary at the same level with professors of higher academic degrees in Western universities.

"Inna Freeman was receiving 40,000 dollars"

- After my arrival to KIMEP my salary was immediately reduced by Dr. Rakhman, - Inna Freeman wrote, - and they told me that they will give my salary in depreciated exchange rate, in tenge.

This is also does not correspond to the reality, - Dr. Bang responded. - The professor mentioned above on arrival has signed a contract for 40,000 dollars a year that is a starting salary for an assistant professor. This sum has been increased by 10% in June 2005. Professor was in position till August 2005.

She explained her dismissal to the KIMEP administration by the fact that her son, who had serious health problems, was left alone in her home country, - Dr. Rakhman added. KIMEP pays salaries in tenge in accordance with the requirements of the legislation. We are the Kazakh institute and we do not have grounds to pay salaries in dollars.
"Pat Gunning lies"

- Sometimes such administrators like Khabib Rakhman and Dr. Bang decide that they do not like someone and send him or her back without the corresponding compensation, - Pat Gunning wrote. - Many specialists fulfilled an additional work after KIMEP with consent of Khabib Rakhman had promised them to pay for it and had not paid. KIMEP deprived me of four months salary and bonuses. It is about 20-30,000 dollars.

- Dr. Rakhman, do you still think that Pat Gunning lies?

Yes, he does. He has sent his application for the position of economics professor with a salary equal to 65,000 dollars in August last year. At that moment it was the highest salary level at KIMEP. Now professors of this level are paid 75-80,000 dollars taking into consideration an indexation. In a month after he was accepted on his position, he started saying in an informal environment that Kazakhstan is a bad country, that the administration pays low salaries to Kazakh citizens, and that KIMEP accepts many local specialists who lack qualification.

Then Pat Gunning refused to teach those courses which were in KIMEP program and which student chose for themselves. He also started coming with his wife to work, a citizen of China or Vietnam. The whole day she was spending at his office. As a result, students were shy to come to personal consultations, professors and administrators were also shy to discuss some confidential issues in her presence. In other words, he appeared to be not the person who was expected to take this position.

Taking into consideration the fact that he had the leading position at his department, the administration wanted him to participate in further development of the economics department and help local staff to increase their qualification. But he refused to do anything in this direction explaining it by the fact that he is too significant in order to go to insignificant meetings.

In December when students were to pass final exams, Pat Gunning suddenly and without any justification required to increase his salary, refused to teach any courses and promised to leave Almaty in case if we do not pay him sum greater than stipulated by contract. In other words, he was blackmailing the university administration.

In order for students to pass the examination, the administration made a decision to pay him a particular amount of bonus. Why did he ask for additional payment? Because a professor of the same department, Sabit Kakimzhanov, was sick and the administration asked Dr. Gunning to teach several classes instead of him. Dr. Gunning came to a classroom and said that Mr. Kakimzhanov is sick but I will not teach class instead of him. So he asked additional payment just for the fact that he let students go. Taking into consideration such unprofessional behavior and unjustified claims, the university administration decided to terminate the contract in January instead of June. At the same time, the decision was made not only by Dr. Bang and Dr, Rakhman personally, but by the committees called at the college, department and the whole university. Professor was paid for December, January and for two months above and otpuskniye in order just to, generally speaking, get rid of him. He did not work in February, March, April, May and June that is why he thinks we underpaid him 20-30,000 dollars.

Was the student harassed indeed?

- What can you say about professor Peyman Pejman, Dr. Rakhman? In your opinion, what are the reasons why he is displeased? Do you confirm the information that he was accused of sexual harassment of one of the sutdents?

Peyman came [to Kazakhstan] in Agust last year. In January-February one of the students complained to the university administration that professor Peyman sexually harasses her and offers to give her higher grades instead. In case if she refuses he promised to fail her at the exam. The girl says he touched her and expressed immodesty by gestures, words and glance. She complained to the head of the journalism department administrator, and she in her turn to the dean of the department. The head of Disciplinary Committee has created an urgent committee. Many people were questioned - students, administrators, professors and Mr. Peyman himself. He also has openly admitted that often invites female students to his place at night. The students confirmed in the course of questioning that professor indeed invited them to his place but they did not say that there were any precedents of sexual harassment. But neither of professors has a right to invite any of the students to his place in the evening. Students can go in a group, if it is, for example, a goodbye party, but not alone.

After three weeks of investigation, the committee came to a conclusion that the fact of sexual harassment can not be proved but Mr. Peyman has certain problems with female students. The committee made a decision that there is no need to terminate a contract with the professor because of sexual harassment case but the committee made decision to give him a strict warning to prevent the repetition of similar cases. Maybe he decided that his reputation was damaged because of this incident. That is why he resigned.

t is unclear why Dr. Gunning and professor Peyman did not go to Kazakh court if they had been that indignant? Inna Freeman has started the trial with a help of one lawyer in Almaty. This lawyer has contacted me. I showed him the employment contract, explained the situation with salary. After that he denied to help Inna with that case explaining it by the fact that the legislation was not breached.

Students work hard here

- Dr. Rakhman, it is known that you are involved in negotiations on acquisition of accreditation with the US corresponding committee. Which stage are negotiations at?

Accreditation in this organization takes about 5-7 years. During their last visit, the commission said KIMEP makes a lot of efforts to get the accreditation that is why it is not much left to get the accreditation. It is necessary to note that the US accreditation is an acknowledgement of the quality of university education and its diplomas all around the world.

- But your former professor Inna Freeman noted that the KIMEP School of Business has expelled none of the students for so many years. In her words, "this is unbelievable and, of course, it gives birth to doubts about the School"...

This is unbelievable because it is not true. There is a strict monitoring system of students' grades. If their academic performance significantly worsens, they are put on academic probation. If within this term they do not improve their performance, they are expelled from the university. Now more than 500 students are put on academic probation or expelled from the university. Moreover, we have expelled for about 500 students from the university in last two years because they were not able to fulfill academic requirements established by the university. Besides it, there is strict code of personal discipline, and there are all corresponding structures to punish the guilty in breaching the discipline. Unfortunately, students are expelled from KIMEP due to disciplinary reasons.

"They do not need bribes"

The students theirselves with which Megapolis correspondent was able to talk to do not deny that sometimes misunderstanding with professors occurs indeed but in the majority of cases foreign lecturers are qualified specialists who do not agree to give grades for bribes. The high level of their salaries allows to refuse from bribes.

Ответ д-ра Бэнга в Республике

Студенты и преподаватели активно вовлечены в процесс управления и принятия решений в институте, говорит д-р Бенг. Здесь читайте полный текст интервью на русском...
КИМЭП принадлежит народу
Чан Йан Бенг, 01.09.2006

Уважаемая Галина Константиновна!

Надеюсь, что данное письмо застанет Вас в добром здравии и благополучии. Благодарю Вас за предложение ответить на письмо относительно управления КИМЭП, поступившее в редакцию Вашей газеты. Это прекрасная возможность внести поправки в данный документ публичного характера и представить Вам реальную ситуацию в КИМЭП.

Считаю чрезвычайно важным сообщить Вам, что Совет Попечителей КИМЭП, как высший орган управления, формулирует политику института и несет ответственность за общее руководство вузом. Ни одно серьезное решение не принимается без утверждения Советом Попечителей. КИМЭП стремится предоставлять гражданам Казахстана наилучшее образование и помогать Казахстану в его развитии. Наш девиз – «Образование, меняющее общество», и наша миссия – служить народу Казахстана. Мы стремимся воспитать новое поколение лидеров в казахстанской экономике, бизнесе и других областях.

Вопрос 1. Действительно ли текучка кадров в Вашем вузе настолько велика, как об этом говорится в письме?

В КИМЭП работает более 600 преподавателей и административных работников и обучается более 4000 студентов. В 2005-2006 учебном году количество преподавателей выросло на 9%, включая граждан Казахстана, получивших профессиональное образование в США, Англии и других странах. Уровень текучести кадров достаточно низок – к текущему академическому году лишь 7% наших преподавателей и административных работников покинуло КИМЭП. Это отражает тот факт, что для многих людей КИМЭП является привлекательным местом для профессиональной деятельности. Дальнейшие доказательства этого можно почерпнуть от самих преподавателей. По данным опроса удовлетворенности преподавателей своей работой, проводившегося в 2006 году, 95% преподавателей рекомендовали бы КИМЭП своим знакомым в качестве места работы. Это подтверждается и студентами, опрос которых демонстрирует высокий уровень удовлетворенности учебным заведением. Опросы удовлетворенности преподавателей и студентов являются документами публичного характера и доступны всем на нашем Интернет-сайте по адресу www.kimep.kz.

Вопрос 2. Чем Вы можете объяснить увольнения иностранных специалистов, которые преподавали в Вашем вузе?

У нас имеются установленные процедуры по найму, продвижению по службе и увольнению сотрудников, которым мы строго следуем. Наша система включает в каждом случае рассмотрение тремя комитетами разного уровня (кафедра, факультет, институтский уровень), в которые входят преподаватели и администраторы. За последние два года лишь четверо преподавателей было уволено из КИМЭП. Мы весьма сожалеем об этом, но деятельность указанных преподавателей не соответствовала миссии и целям института. Те же, кто увольняется из КИМЭП по собственному желанию, делают это по разным причинам, включающим дальнейшее повышение квалификации (основной фактор для казахстанских преподавателей), личные мотивы (семейные проблемы) и завершение строго установленных сроков пребывания по таким специальным программам, как исследовательские стипендии Фулбрайт и программы обмена с другими университетами. Мы прилагаем все возможные усилия по закреплению преподавателей, а также сотрудников, путем предоставления высокой заработной платы, конкурентоспособной на мировом рынке труда, обеспечения медицинским страхованием и прочими льготами, включая, например, предоставление возможности получения бесплатного дополнительного образования. Помимо этого, мы предоставляем студентам разнообразные гранты на получение образования. Следует помнить, что иностранные преподаватели, работающие в КИМЭП, находятся вдали от родного дома и своих семей. Также следует понимать, что по ряду причин, некоторые специалисты просто не подходят для работы в столь динамично развивающейся стране, как Казахстан.

Вопрос 3. Есть ли у КИМЭП иные доходы, кроме поступлений от студентов в виде платы за образование?

Как и любой другой вуз, КИМЭП получает большую часть своих доходов в виде платы за обучение от студентов. На данный момент эта часть составляет 85-90% от общего дохода института. Тем не менее, в 2005-2006 учебном году КИМЭП получил от корпоративных спонсоров 37,5 миллионов тенге (около 300 000 долларов США) в виде прямых пожертвований. Я лично за последние годы инвестировал в институт 302 338 728 тенге (2 050 697 долларов США). Кроме того, в 2005-2006 учебном году более 12,5 миллионов тенге (около 1 миллиона долларов США) поступило от частных спонсоров в виде платы за обучение отдельных студентов. Вся прибыль, получаемая КИМЭП, реинвестируется в развитие института в соответствии с требованиями его Устава, с целью повышения качества образовательного процесса, что может быть замечено всяким, кто ознакомится со значительными усовершенствованиями, проведенными в институте за последние несколько лет.

Вопрос 4. На самом ли деле все контакты на строительные и ремонтные работы, проводимые в вузе, выигрывает компания USKO, принадлежащая Вашей семье?

Это абсолютно не так. Процедура выбора подрядчиков открыта, прозрачна и построена на принципах конкуренции. Мы будем рады пригласить Вас и продемонстрировать наши процедуры и соответствующую документацию. Из одиннадцати ремонтных и строительных проектов, осуществляемых в настоящее время или же недавно завершенных на территории КИМЭП, лишь два проекта выполняются компанией USKO. В КИМЭП установлена скрупулезная процедура тендерного отбора. Независимый комитет рассматривает поданные заявки и вносит свои рекомендации Исполнительному Комитету КИМЭП. Если проект связан с крупными капиталовложениями, то вопрос рассматривается Советом КИМЭП – высшим органом управления на уровне института, состоящим из преподавателей, администрации Института, сотрудников и студентов. При этом, наиболее значительные капиталовложения подлежат обязательному утверждению Советом Попечителей КИМЭП, в состав которого входят ведущие бизнесмены, ученые и представители правительства РК. В случае потенциального конфликта интересов, соответствующие заинтересованные стороны исключаются из процесса рассмотрения и утверждения проекта. Хотелось бы отметить, что данные процедуры недавно подверглись тщательному рассмотрению со стороны ведущего агентства США по аккредитации вузов, которое пришло к выводу, что установленные процедуры и их осуществление соответствуют стандартам управления, принятым в аккредитованных вузах.

Вопрос 5. Почему ремонтные работы в библиотеке Вашего вуза проводила именно компания USKO? Поступали ли к вам заявки на проведение этих работ от других компаний?

Создание новой библиотеки мирового класса стало одним из наиболее успешных достижений КИМЭП. Из трех полученных заявок предложение компании USKO было выбрано как наиболее выгодное для института с точки зрения соотношения цены и качества. Данное решение, подобно всем решениям, касающимся крупных капиталовложений, было принято в соответствии с вышеизложенным процессом, а также в соответствии с принципами полной прозрачности. Я уверен в том, что новая библиотека КИМЭП является знаковым достижением для казахстанского образования, став наилучшей университетской библиотекой в Республике, и, на мой взгляд, на всем пространстве СНГ. Хотел бы повторить еще раз, что буду рад предоставить Вам исчерпывающую информацию по всем процедурам, связанным со строительством библиотеки.

Вопрос 6. Уверены ли Вы, что финансовая деятельность вуза прозрачна, как требуют того международные стандарты?

Я лично твердо уверен в этом. За последние пять лет по нашей инициативе финансовая деятельность КИМЭП пять раз подвергалась внешним аудиторским проверкам. Все указанные проверки проводились компаниями, получившими международное признание – «Прайс Уотерхаус Куперс» (четыре раза) и «Делойт Туш» (один раз). В результате каждой из аудиторских проверок выносилось безусловно положительное мнение о финансовой деятельности КИМЭП и полной ее прозрачности. Система контроля финансовой деятельности также абсолютно прозрачна и результаты этих проверок являются документами публичного характера. КИМЭП является единственным учебным заведением в Казахстане, регулярно подвергающимся подобным аудиторским проверкам. Мы будем рады направить Вам аудиторские отчеты в том виде, в котором мы предоставляем их вниманию общественности.

Вопрос 7. Каков профессиональный уровень топ-менеджеров и главных администраторов Вашего вуза?

Я полностью уверен в команде, составляющей высшее руководство Института. Специалисты, занимающие руководящие позиции, сочетают в себе десятилетия опыта работы на ведущих административных и научных должностях и получили соответствующее образование в лучших университетах мира. Эта команда реализует мое видение миссии КИМЭП на основе использования опыта, полученного в США, Канаде, странах Европы, а также в Казахстане. Руководители института были утверждены в своих должностях Советом Попечителей в апреле текущего года. Я не уверен, что в каком-либо другом вузе Казахстана найдется столь же компетентная команда управленцев, как в КИМЭП. Я бы хотел пригласить Вас, а также любых заинтересованных лиц в КИМЭП и предоставить Вам резюме главных администраторов, чтобы Вы могли составить свое собственное мнение. Министерство Образования и Науки Казахстана, а также многие казахстанские университеты обращались к руководству КИМЭП с просьбой поделиться своим опытом и специальными навыками в отношении развития системы высшего образования в Казахстане. Данный факт является подтверждением высокой квалификации управленческого состава КИМЭП.

Вопрос 8. Правда ли, что КИМЭП в течение двух лет не может получить регистрацию Американской аккредитационной группы? Если правда, то как Вы можете это объяснить?

Как правило, процедура получения аккредитации указанного аккредитационного агентства США занимает от пяти до семи лет. КИМЭП на данный момент находится посредине данного процесса. Мы гордимся тем, что являемся первым независимым университетом в СНГ, подавшим заявку на получение аккредитации ведущего аккредитационного агентства США, известного международной общественности. Я уверен в том, что мы достигнем данной цели и будем в состоянии предоставить народу Казахстана образование в университете мирового класса.

В заключение я хотел бы подчеркнуть, что КИМЭП является динамично развивающимся институтом, которым Республика Казахстан может гордиться. Мы создали и совершенствуем КИМЭП в качестве дара народу Казахстана и на этом пути мы следуем принципам предоставления образования мирового уровня, с помощью чего надеемся поддержать те значительные перемены в лучшую сторону, свидетелями которых мы ежедневно являемся в Казахстане.

Мы стараемся достигнуть этого посредством открытой и прозрачной системы управления, для того, чтобы наши студенты и выпускники внесли свой вклад в экономические и социальные реформы, а также для того, чтобы всеми своими действиями КИМЭП мог продемонстрировать академические и управленческие достижения мирового уровня. Я признателен нашему Совету Попечителей за создание системы, позволяющей нам сделать это.

Нашим огромным преимуществом является то, что наши студенты и преподаватели активно вовлечены в процесс управления и принятия решений в институте. Мы стараемся выполнять все, что мы декларируем. КИМЭП открыт для всех, и мы будем рады искренне пригласить всех, кто может быть заинтересован, посетить институт и лично убедиться в наших достижениях. КИМЭП принадлежит народу Казахстана, с которым мы рады поделиться своим опытом.

Еще раз хотел бы пригласить Вас посетить КИМЭП, побеседовать со студентами, преподавателями и администраторами, чтобы лично убедиться в этом.

Искренне Ваш
Чан Йан Бенг, PhD
Президент КИМЭП


Bang's response in Respublika

"Students and professors are actively involved in management and decision-making process..." , Dr. Bang says and provide answers to the questions from Respublika editorial staff

KIMEP belongs to people
Dear Galina Konstantinovna!

I hope this letter will find You in good health and prosperity. I would like to thank you for your suggestion to reply to the letter concerning the KIMEP management received by your newspaper. This is a wonderful opportunity to make some amendments to this document of a public nature and to show the real situation at KIMEP.

I think it is very important to inform you that the KIMEP Board of Trustees as the supreme management organ formulates the policy of the university and bears the responsibility for general university management. No single serious decision is taken without the approval from the Board of Trustees. KIMEP strives to provide Kazakh citizens with best education and to help Kazakhstan with its development. Our motto is "Education to Change Society"and our mission is to serve people of Kazakhstan. We strive for bringing up a new generation of leaders in Kazakh economy, business and other spheres.

Question #1 Is it true that KIMEP churn rate is that high as it is said in the letter?

Around 600 professors and administrative employees work and over 4000 students study at KIMEP. The number of professors has increased by 9%, including Kazakh citizens who got professional education in the USA, Britain and other countries, in 2005-2006 academic year. The churn rate is sufficiently low, only 7% of our professors and administrative employees left KIMEP. It reflects the fact that for many people KIMEP is an attractive place for professional activity. Further proofs you can get from professors theirselves. According to the results of the survey on whether professors are satisfied with their work conducted in 2006, 95% of professors would have recommended KIMEP to their acquaintances as a place of employment. This is also confirmed by the students who demonstrate a high rate of satisfaction with the university. They satisfaction rate surveys are documents of public nature and can be found on our website www.kimep.kz.

Question #2 How can you explain dismissal of the international professors who taught in your university?

We have the established procedures for recruiting, promotion and dismissal of employees which we follow. Our system includes the consideration of every case by three committees of different level (college, department and university level), which consist of professors and administrators. Only four professors have been dismissed from KIMEP in last two years. We are extremely sorry about this but the activity of some professors did not correspond to the mission and goals of the university. Those who are dismissed by the own wish do it due to different reasons, including further increase in qualification (major factor for Kazakh professors), personal motives (family problems) and expiration of the term of staying in terms of such programs as Fulbright research scholarships and exchange programs with other universities. We make all possible efforts to keep our professors by providing high salary rate, competitiveness on the world market, provision of medical insurance and other benefits, including an opportunity to get free additional education. Besides it, we provide various scholarships for our students to get education. You have to remember that foreign professors working at KIMEP are apart from their homes and families. It is also necessary to understand that some of the specialists do not suit to work in such dynamically developing country as Kazakhstan.

Question #3 Are there any other income besides the tuition fees from the students?

As any other university, KIMEP receives the major part of its income in form of tuition fees. At this moment this part equals to 85-90% out of the university's total income. Nevertheless, KIMEP received 37.5 m tenge (about 300,000 thousand dollars) from corporate sponsors in form of direct donations in 2005-2006 academic year. I personally invested 302,338,728 tenge (2,050,697 dollars) into the university. Besides it, private sponsors donated over 12,5 millions tenge (about 1 million dollars) in form of a tuition fee payment for particular students. All income received By KIMEP is reinvested into the university's development in accordance with the requirements of its Charter in order to improve the quality of educational process that can be easily seen by anyone who decides to familiarize with significant improvement accomplished in the university over the last few years.

Question #4 Is it true that the USKO company, which belongs to your family, wins all the contracts for construction and repair works on the university campus?

It is absolutely wrong. The procedure of choosing subcontractors is open, transparent and based upon the competition principle. We will be happy to invite you and demonstrate our procedures and the corresponding documentation. Our of 11 construction and repair projects conducted these days or recently finished on the KIMEP campus, only two projects are conducted by the USKO company. The scrupulous procedure of the bid selection is established at KIMEP. If a project is connected to big investments, then the issue is considered by the KIMEP Council - the supreme management organ at the university level, which consists of professors, the university administration, employees and students. At the same time, the most significant investments are a subject to the obligatory approval of the KIMEP Board of Trustees, which consists of leading businessmen, scientists and representatives of the Kazakh government. In case of potential conflict of interests, corresponding conflicting sides are excluded from the process of consideration and approval of the project. I would like to note that these procedures recently were exposed to detailed consideration by the leading US agency on the universities accreditation which came to a conclusion that the established procedures correspond to the management standards adopted in the accredited universities.

Question #5 Why did the USKO particularly conducted the repair works in your university's library? Did anyone else applied to conduct these works?

The creation of world class library became one of the most successful achievements of KIMEP. Out of three received applications, the USKO Company was chosen as the most profitable for the university in terms of price and quality. This decision as the other decisions concerning large capital investments was made in according with the process mentioned above and corresponds to the full transparency principle. I am sure that the new KIMEP library is a cornerstone event achievement for the Kazakh education because it became the best library in the Republic and, in my opinion, on the CIS space.

Question #6 Are you sure that university's financial activity is transparent in accordance with the international standards?

I am, personally, sure that it is so. The KIMEP financial activities have been a subject to the external audits for the last five years by our own initiative. All the audits were made by the companies who got the international recognition - Price Waterhouse Coopers (four times) and Deloitte Touche (one time). The result of each audit was the undoubtedly positive opinion about KIMEP financial activity and its full transparency. The KIMEP system of financial control is also absolutely transparent and results pf this audits are the documents of public nature. KIMEP is the only educational institution in Kazakhstan which is regularly exposed to such audits. We will be happy to send you auditors' reports in the form, in which we announce it to the public.

Question #7 What is the professional level of the top managers and administrators in your university?

I am absolutely sure in the top management team of the university. The specialists which have the executive posts possess both decades of work experience at the administrative and academic posts and got the best education in the best universities of the world. This team helps to implement my vision of the KIMEP mission based on experience acquired in the USA, Canada, European countries and Kazakhstan. The university administrators were approved on their posts by the Board of Trustees in April this year. I am not sure that there is any such qualified team of the administrators as at KIMEP. I would to invite you any interested people to KIMEP and show them CVs of the top managers so you could get your own opinion. The Ministry of Education and Science and many Kazakh universities ask KIMEP administration to share their experience and special skills in developing higher educational system in Kazakhstan. This fact is a confirmation of the high qualification of the KIMEP administration.
Question #8 Is it true that KIMEP is not able to get accreditation from the US Accreditation group for already two years? If it is true, how can you explain it?

Usually, the procedure of acquiring accreditation of the US accreditation agency mentioned above takes from 5 to 7 years. Today KIMEP is in the middle of this process. We are proud of the fact that we are the first independent university in the CIS which applied to acquiring accreditation of the leading US accreditation agency known to the world community. I am sure that we will reach this goal and will able to provide people of Kazakhstan with world class education.

In conclusion I would like to underline that KIMEP is dynamically developing university which the Republic of Kazakhstan can be proud of. We have created and are improving KIMEP as a gift to people of Kazakhstan. On this way we follow principle of providing world level of education, with the help of which we hope to support those significant changes for the better that we can observe everyday in Kazakhstan.

We try to reach this through open and transparent management system in order for our students and graduates to contribute to the economic and social reforms and also in order of KIMEP to demonstrate by its actions academic and management skills of the world level. I am very grateful to our Board of Trustees for creation of the system that allows us to do so.

Our huge advantage is that our students and professors are actively involved in the management and decision-making process in the university. We try to accomplish everything that we declare. KIMEP is open for everyone, and we will be happy to invite everyone, who is interested, to visit our university and personally see our achievements. KIMEP belongs to people of Kazakhstan with which we glad to share our experience.

One more time I would like to invite you to visit KIMEP, talk to students, professors and administrator in order to make sure of that personally.

Статья с Мегаполиса

В одном из самых известных и дорогих вузов страны КИМЭП – скандал, который может выйти на международный уровень. Пять его бывших иностранных преподавателей обвиняют администрацию института в притеснении преподавателей, неграмотном управлении и финансовых махинациях. С заявлениями такого рода КИМЭП, основанный 14 лет назад при поддержке Президента страны Нурсултана Назарбаева, сталкивается впервые.

Все обвинения и претензии преподаватели Пейман Педжман (бывший адъюнкт-профессор журналистики и СМИ), доктора Уильям М.Джей Хики, Патрик Ганнинг (бывший глава департамента экономики КИМЭП), Майкл Макхью (бывший глава департамента политологии) и профессор Инна Фриман (департамент маркетинга) выразили в Открытом письме на имя главы нашего государства. Подробности же они сообщили «Мегаполису». Выслушав их точку зрения, мы обратились за комментариями и к руководству КИМЭП, которое согласилось дать ответ по каждому пункту Открытого письма.

Трудности перевода?
№ 36 (300) от 11.09.2006
«USKO действительно принадлежит доктору Бэнгу»

– КИМЭП согласно его уставу должен быть некоммерческой организацией, но почти все строительство и ремонтные работы в институте проводились USKO – компанией, контролируемой доктором Бэнгом и его семьей, – пишут в Открытом письме преподаватели. – КИМЭП часто публикует свои предложения о контрактах в различных газетах, но почти все без исключения контракты выиграны USKO и нет полной независимой ревизии процесса предложения цены. Например, недавно законченная библиотека вуза стоила около трех миллионов долларов, но она могла быть построена за меньшую сумму другими компаниями.

– Абсолютно неверно то, что все контракты присуждаются одной компании, – отвечает президент КИМЭП доктор Чан Йан Бэнг. – Из 11 ремонтных и строительных проектов, осуществляемых в настоящее время или же недавно завершенных на территории КИМЭП, лишь два выполняются компанией USKO. В КИМЭП установлена скрупулезная процедура тендерного отбора. Независимый комитет рассматривает заявки и вносит свои рекомендации Исполнительному комитету КИМЭП. Если проект связан с крупными капиталовложениями, то вопрос рассматривается Советом КИМЭП, состоящим из преподавателей, администрации института, сотрудников и студентов.

При этом наиболее значительные капиталовложения подлежат обязательному утверждению Советом попечителей КИМЭП, в который входят ведущие бизнесмены, ученые и представители правительства РК (всего 17 человек), в том числе заместитель председателя Госкомимущества, представитель акимата Алматы, бывшие председатель Нацбанка Даулет Сембаев и Григорий Марченко, представители академических кругов США из университета Сан-Франциско, а также президент Евразийского фонда в Казахстане и президент Сити-Банка.

– Все члены Попечительского совета проголосовали за проект, так как, по их мнению, предложение USKO было лучшим по соотношению цены и качества, – добавил вице-президент КИМЭП по академическим вопросам доктор Хабиб РАХМАН. – Неверно, что библиотека могла быть построена за гораздо меньшую сумму. Мы можем предоставить документы, по которым предложение USKO было на 400 тысяч долларов дешевле, чем другие. Всего в конкурсе участвовало три организации, в том числе «Алматыкурылыс».

– А вы, господин Рахман, сами не являетесь учредителем компании USKO?

– Нет, я не акционер. Учредителем является доктор Бэнг, и у него имеется Совет директоров.

– А эти три миллиона для строительства, да и вообще любые деньги на строительство, – это государственные деньги или привлечены КИМЭПом из других источников?

– Это в основном прибыль от платы за обучение.

– Сколько всего студентов в КИМЭП, и какова в среднем стоимость обучения?

– Сейчас у нас учатся 4200 студентов по всем программам. На бакалавриате стоимость обучения составляет в среднем около четырех тысяч долларов в год, на программах магистратуры – 5 тысяч. Ежегодный бюджет КИМЭП в среднем составляет 18 миллионов долларов, из них 80% – это фонд зарплаты, причем у иностранных и местных преподавателей зарплаты одинаковые – от 40 до 85 тысяч долларов США, в зависимости от ученой степени.

Текучесть кадров

– Главные администраторы КИМЭП, которым доверяет доктор Бэнг, показывают серьезную непочтительность в отношении западных педагогов, – заявляется в Открытом письме преподавателей. – Условия контрактов изменяются, как только иностранцы приезжают в Казахстан. Так же без уведомления или какого-либо оправдания уменьшаются размеры зарплат. Поэтому много ино-странцев продолжают оставлять КИМЭП, поработав здесь лишь в течение небольшого времени.

– Контракты работников периодически пересматриваются и модифицируются с целью соответствия законодательству РК и международным нормам, – говорит доктор Бэнг. – В 2005-2006 учебном году заработная плата в КИМЭП возросла в среднем на 12,2%, а в 2006-2007 учебном году – на 10%. В КИМЭП работают более 600 преподавателей и административных работников, в 2005-2006 учебном году их количество выросло на 9%. Уровень текучести кадров очень низок – в этом году лишь 7% наших преподавателей и административных работников покинуло КИМЭП.

Абсолютно неверно также утверждение о том, что решения принимаются узким кругом администраторов. У нас имеются установленные процедуры по найму, продвижению по службе и увольнению сотрудников, которым мы строго следуем. Наша система включает в каждом случае рассмотрение тремя комитетами разного уровня (кафедра, факультет, институтский уровень), в которые входят преподаватели и администраторы. За последние два года лишь четверо преподавателей было уволено из КИМЭП. Их деятельность не соответствовала миссии и целям института.

– Какой резон всем этим преподавателям лгать?

– Возможно, это не столько вранье, сколько недопонимание этими преподавателями ситуации в стране и в КИМЭП, так как они приехали в Казахстан не так давно, – отвечает вице-президент КИМЭП доктор Рахман. – Проблема с иностранными преподавателями даже не столько в деньгах, сколько в том, что это для них совершенно другая страна, другой быт и другая культура. И некоторые не могут найти здесь себе место, поэтому они уезжают.

– КИМЭП стремится привлекать на работу иностранных преподавателей, а они обыкновенно приезжают в Казахстан не более чем на один-два года, часто лишь в качестве приглашаемых ректоров, – добавляет президент Студенческого правительства КИМЭП Мади Сарсенбаев. – Приходится признать то печальное обстоятельство, что большинство из них не планируют провести остаток своей жизни в Казахстане, и покидают КИМЭП при появлении более привлекательных предложений из-за рубежа. Кроме того, довольно непросто обсуждать условия работы с иностранными преподавателями и предлагать им зарплату того же уровня, что получают преподаватели с высшими академическими степенями в западных университетах.

«Инна Фриман получала 40 тысяч долларов США»

– После прибытия в КИМЭП моя зарплата была немедленно сокращена доктором Рахманом, – пишет преподаватель Инна Фриман, – и мне сказали, что мою зарплату будет выдавать в обесцененном обменном курсе – в тенге.

– Это также не соответствует действительности, – заявляет в ответ доктор Бэнг. – Упомянутая преподавательница по прибытии подписала контракт на 40 тысяч долларов США в год, что является начальной зарплатой для ассистант-профессора. В июне 2005 года эта сумма была увеличена на 10%. Преподавательница занимала свою должность до августа 2005 года.

– Она объяснила свой уход руководству КИМЭП тем, что на ее родине остался сын, у которого были серьезные проблемы со здоровьем, – добавляет доктор Рахман.

– КИМЭП выплачивает зарплату в тенге в соответствии с требованиями законодательства. Мы являемся казахстанским институтом, и у нас нет оснований выплачивать зарплату в долларах США.

«Пат Ганнинг лжет»

– Иногда такие административные чиновники, как Хабиб Рахман и президент доктор Бэнг, решают, что им не нравится кто-то, и они отсылают его или ее без надлежащей компенсации, – пишет Пат Ганнинг. – Много специалистов выполнили дополнительную работу после того, как КИМЭП с разрешения Хабиба Рахмана пообещал им оплату. Но так и не выплатил ее. Меня КИМЭП лишил платы за четыре месяца и премий. Это около 20-30 тысяч долларов.

– Доктор Рахман, вы по-прежнему считаете, что Пат Ганнинг лжет?

– Да, лжет. Он подал заявку о приеме на работу в прошлом августе на позицию профессора по экономике с зарплатой 65 тысяч долларов в год. На тот момент это был самый высокий уровень зарплаты в КИМЭП. Сейчас профессорам такого уровня платят с учетом индексации 75-80 тысяч долларов. Примерно через месяц после приема на работу этот профессор начал в неформальной обстановке говорить, что Казахстан – нехорошая страна, что казахстанцам их руководство плохо платит, и что КИМЭП принимает на работу много местных специалистов с недостаточной квалификацией.

Далее Пат Ганнинг не захотел вести те предметы, которые были указаны в программе КИМЭП и которые студенты выбрали для себя. Он также приводил на работу свою жену, гражданку то ли Китая, то ли Вьетнама, и в течение целого дня она сидела в его кабинете. В результате студенты стеснялись к нему заходить на частные консультации, а преподаватели и администраторы также стеснялись обсуждать какие-то конфиденциальные вопросы с ним в ее присутствии. Иными словами, он оказался не совсем тем человеком, которого ожидали на этом месте.

Учитывая, что он занимал ведущую позицию на своей кафедре, администрация хотела, чтобы он принимал участие в дальнейшем развитии кафедры экономики, а также помогал местным кадрам повышать квалификацию. Но он отказался что-либо делать в этом направлении, мотивируя это тем, что он слишком значительный, чтобы приходить на незначительные встречи.

В декабре, когда студентам пришло время сдавать семестровый экзамен, Пат Ганнинг внезапно и необоснованно потребовал повышения зарплаты и отказался вообще проводить какие-либо занятия и пообещал покинуть Алматы, если ему не заплатят больше, чем указано в контракте. Другими словами, он просто шантажировал руководство института.

Чтобы студенты сдали экзамены, руководство приняло решение выплатить ему определенную сумму премиальных. Почему он требовал дополнительной оплаты? Потому что преподаватель той же кафедры Сабит Какимжанов был на больничном, и руководство вуза попросило доктора Ганнинга провести несколько занятий за него. Доктор пришел в учебную комнату и сказал, что господин Какимжанов болен, но я не буду проводить за него уроки. И за то, что он просто отпустил студентов, он потребовал дополнительной оплаты. Учитывая такое непрофессиональное поведение и необоснованные претензии, руководство института решило разорвать с ним контракт в декабре вместо июня. Причем это решение было принято не лично доктором Рахманом и доктором Бэнгом, а комитетами, созванными на уровне кафедры, факультета и всего института. Профессору заплатили за декабрь, за январь и еще за два месяца сверх этого, а также отпускные, просто для того, чтобы, грубо говоря, избавиться от него. Он не работал в течение февраля, марта, апреля, мая, июня, и именно поэтому он считает, что ему не доплатили 20-30 тысяч долларов.

Так домогались ли студентку?

– А что вы можете сказать по поводу профессора Пеймана Педжмана, доктор Рахман? По вашему мнению, каковы были причины его недовольства? Подтверждаете ли вы информацию, что его обвиняли в харрасменте – сексуальном домогательстве одной из студенток?

– Пейман приехал в августе прошлого года, в январе-феврале этого года одна студентка обратилась к руководству института и заявила, что профессор Пейман сексуально домогался ее и взамен предлагал поставить ей более высокие оценки. За отказ он угрожал полностью провалить ее на экзамене. По словам девушки, он ее касался, в общем, проявлял нескромность по отношению к ней жестами, словами, взглядом. Она доложила об этом завкафедрой журналистики, та – декану факультета. Глава дисциплинарного комитета создал экстренный комитет, было опрошено много людей: студентов, администраторов и преподавателей, а также сам мистер Пейман. И он открыто признал, что часто приглашает к себе домой по ночам студенток. Последние в ходе опроса подтвердили, что профессор действительно приглашал их к себе домой, но они не говорили, что были какие-либо прецеденты сексуального домогательства. Но в КИМЭП ни один преподаватель не имеет право ни одного студента или студентку приглашать к себе домой вечером. Студенты могут пойти группой, если это, к примеру, прощальная вечеринка, но не в одиночку.

Примерно после трех недель разбирательства комитет пришел к выводу, что факт сексуального домогательства не доказан, но определенные проблемы у господина Пеймана со студентами женского пола имеются. И также комитет вынес решение, что нет нужды разрывать контракт с преподавателем по причине сексуального домогательства, но ему рекомендуется сделать строгое предупреждение, чтобы подобных случаев не повторялось. Но этот преподаватель посчитал себя обиженным и подал в отставку. Может быть, он посчитал, что его репутация из-за этого инцидента испорчена и поэтому ушел.

И непонятно, почему доктор Ганнинг и профессор Пейман, если они были так возмущены, не пошли в казахстанский суд? Инна Фриман начала подобное разбирательство с помощью одного адвоката в Алматы. Этот юрист связался со мной, я предоставил ему трудовой контракт, объяснил все обстоятельства по зарплате, после чего адвокат отказался от ведения дела, заявив, что никаких нарушений законодательства нет.

Студентов здесь не жалеют

– Доктор Рахман, известно, что вы уже второй год ведете переговоры по получению аккредитации с соответствующим комитетом США. На каком этапе сейчас находятся ваши переговоры?

– Аккредитация в этой организации занимает 5-7 лет, после послед-него визита их представителей комиссия заявила, что КИМЭП прилагает много усилий, поэтому до получения аккредитации осталось совсем немного. Отмечу, что ак-кредитация США – это прежде всего признание качества образования в вузе и его дипломов по всему миру.

– Но ваша бывшая преподавательница Инна Фриман заметила, что Школа бизнеса Бэнга в КИМЭП не исключила ни одного студента за столько лет. По ее словам, «это неслыханно, и, конечно, подвергает сомнению доверие к школе»…

– Это неслыханно потому, что это неправда. В КИМЭП налажена строгая система отслеживания успеваемости студентов. Если их успеваемость заметно снижается, им дается так называемый «академический испытательный срок». Если в течение этого срока успеваемость не улучшается, они отчисляются из института. Сейчас более 500 студентов находятся либо на испытательном сроке, либо отчислены. Более того, за последние два года мы исключили из КИМЭП более 500 студентов за то, что они были не в состоянии выполнять академические требования, установленные институтом. Помимо этого в институте установлен строгий кодекс личной дисциплины и имеются все соответствующие структуры для наказания виновных в нарушении дисциплины. К сожалению, ежегодно студенты исключаются из КИМЭП и по дисциплинарным причинам.

«Им взятки не нужны»

Сами студенты КИМЭП, с которыми удалось побеседовать корреспонденту «Мегаполиса», не отрицают, что с определенными преподавателями недопонимание бывает, но в большинстве своем иностранные лекторы – действительно высококвалифицированные специалисты, у которых невозможно «развести» сессию: высокий уровень их зарплаты позволяет им отказываться от взяток.


Friday, 1 September 2006

An Open Letter in Respublika

We are a number of former lecturers, professors, department chairs, and deans at KIMEP, your country's best and most renowned higher education institution. We are writing to you because this university is plagued with serious administrative, and management problems.
Many of our respected local and foreign colleagues simply do not dare join our ranks because of fear of retribution. Some of our names are listed below.

Why should you care? Because, if not corrected, these problems will discredit the name of your country, the name of your country's president, and affect the quality of education that your sons and daughters deserve to get.

We are publishing this letter in this newspaper because it is the only one that agreed to publish it. We have not chosen this publication because it is an opposition paper. We hold no political affinity or opposition to President Nursultan Nazarbayev and his cabinet; we believe KIMEP is not a political issue; it is national issue.

The sooner President Nazarbayev and his administration openly distance themselves from KIMEP's mismanagement, the sooner this institution with so much promise can start the road to recovery.

We are also appealing to foreign embassies in Kazakhstan to warn their citizens that KIMEP is not a suitable educational institution. We have sent a copy of this letter to some of the embassies.

In the past two academic years alone, almost a dozen professors and deans have either summarily been fired or voluntarily resigned out of frustration and the situation is not getting any better.

KIMEP is currently being sued in Kazakhstan courts and we appeal to the judiciary to act independently.

This Open Letter is NOT to criticize Kazakhstan or Kazakhstanis. The problems we are pointing out to have mostly been created, exacerbated, and implemented by foreigners who are running KIMEP.

We are openly airing the dispute because trying to affect change from inside KIMEP has been tried and failed. KIMEP's president, Dr. Young Chan Bang, is said to be enjoying the full support of President Nazarbayev and that has been used as an excuse to stifle any opposition to his management style.

Dr. Bang does own KIMEP and is entitled to run the university as he pleases.
But KIMEP is trying to build a reputation as a Western-style business, management, and social sciences university. It is trying to attract respected Western educators.

Dr. Bang has also put his full trust in a few top administrators who lack the respect or trust of their colleagues. These "senior" administrators lack any moral or professional credibility, in some cases did not have any substantial teaching or administrative positions before they came to KIMEP.

Many believe that even the senior Vice President of Academic Affairs and the Dean of Student Affairs, to whom Dr. Bang has delegated much power and trust, lack the appropriate experience to qualify them for their positions.
The publishing record of these administrators is extremely poor, including one administrator who has only written one paper in the 1970's.

A primary question clouding KIMEP's reputation is the financial interests of Dr. Bang and his family in it.

KIMEP, by its charter, is supposed to be a non-profit institution. But nearly all construction and repair work done in KIMEP is done by USKO, a company controlled by Dr. Bang and his family.

KIMEP often advertises contract bids in various newspapers. But, almost without exception, those contracts are won by USKO and there is no independent auditing of the bidding process.

For example, there is no record showing work vsuch as the recently completed library that has cost about $3 million -- could not have been done cheaper by other companies. There needs to be more transparency into the USKO-KIMEP financial relationship.

There are questions about whether KIMEP is financially on the right track.
Most universities receive a substantial portion of their income through grants and donations. KIMEP receives almost none.

With about 90 percent of KIMEP-s revenue coming from student tuition, which increases about 15 percent each year, the university-s future finances seem shaky.

Another problem at KIMEP is that the top administrators trusted by Dr. Bang show serious disrespect for the Western educators the university needs to keep in order to maintain and increase its quality of education.

This handful of ?senior managers¦, whom many consider corrupt, incompetent, and arrogant, has created a closed administrative system that is undemocratic and filled with nepotism and cronyism.

Contracts change after foreigners are brought to Kazakhstan, salaries decrease without notice or justification, and disrespect forces many foreigners to leave KIMEP only after a short period.

Another example of mismanagement and disregard for administrative accountability is that many of the "ad hoc" or "standing" committees formed at KIMEP are filled with the same members. Trying to appeal the decisions of one committee to another would simply bring you in front of the very same people you dealt with before.

They have failed to meet the obligations of some accreditation committees in the past and although currently attempting to engage with another for over two years, they have not even managed to achieve registration with this American accreditation group.

At a time KIMEP is actively pursuing its desire to receive accreditation from the United States, such mismanagement, questionable financial schemes, disregard for the welfare of its lecturers and professors, and summary-dismissal of professors can only hurt the institution and the reputation of Kazakhstan and its leaders.

It is time President Nazarbayev and his administration put a stop to these.

Mr. Peyman Pejman, former Associate Professor, Journalism and Mass Communication; Dr. William MJ Hickey, former Fulbright Professor; Dr. Patrick Gunning, former chair of the Economics Department Dr. Michael McHugh, former chair of the Political Science Department Ms. Ina Freeman, for visiting professor, Marketing Department

Открытое письмо в Республике

В редакцию обратились преподаватели, теперь уже бывшие, Казахстанского института менеджмента, экономики и прогнозирования (КИМЭП) с просьбой опубликовать их открытое письмо к президенту и общественности Казахстана. При этом они посетовали, что до «Республики» обращались в разные газеты, но везде им пойти навстречу отказались.

Прочитав документ, мы решили, что поднятая в нем проблема заслуживает внимания, все-таки КИМЭП – один из самых популярных вузов в нашей стране и то, что внутри и вокруг него происходит, наверняка затрагивает интересы и кого-то из наших читателей.

А чтобы нас не обвинили в предвзятости, мы попросили прокомментировать изложенные в письме факты президента Казахстанского института менеджмента, экономики и прогнозирования Чан Йан БЕНГА. Его ответы на наши вопросы мы тоже публикуем рядом с открытым письмом в том виде, в котором они были присланы в редакцию.
Открытое письмо президенту Нурсултану Назарбаеву, министру образования Айтимовой и родителям всех детей Казахстана

Мы, некоторые из бывших лекторов, преподавателей, глав департаментов и деканов КИМЭП, лучшего и наиболее прославленного высшего учебного заведения вашей страны. Мы обращаемся к вам, потому что данный университет измучен серьезными финансовыми, административными проблемами и проблемами менеджмента. Многие из наших уважаемых местных коллег просто не осмелились присоединиться к нам из страха возмездия. Некоторые из наших имен перечислены ниже.

Почему это должно нас беспокоить? Потому что если эти проблемы не будут решены, они дискредитируют имя вашей страны, имя президента вашей страны и повлияют на качество образования, которого заслуживают ваши дети.

Мы публикуем это письмо в этой газете, потому что она является единственной, которая согласилась его опубликовать. Мы выбрали эту газету не потому, что она является оппозиционной. Мы не испытываем политической симпатии и не придерживаемся взглядов, противоположных взглядам президента Назарбаева и его кабинета министров. Мы верим, что КИМЭП – это не политическая, а национальная проблема. Чем скорее президент Назарбаев и его администрация открыто откажется от причастности к несоответствующему стандартам управлению КИМЭП, тем скорее данный многообещающий институт сможет начать свой путь к восстановлению.

Мы также обращаемся к иностранным посольствам в Казахстане, чтобы они предупредили своих граждан, что КИМЭП – это неподходящее высшее учебное заведение. Мы также отправили копии данного письма некоторым из посольств.

В течение только двух учебных лет около дюжины преподавателей, которые осмелились озвучить свой протест либо уволены, либо добровольно уволились из-за расстройства. И данная ситуация не становится лучше. В данный момент КИМЭП привлекают к судебной ответственности, и мы призываем судий к независимым действиям.

Это открытое письмо НЕ нацелено на то, чтобы критиковать вашу страну или ваших людей. Фактически, проблемы, на которые мы указываем, в основном были созданы иностранцами, которые управляют КИМЭП, а никак не казахстанцами.

Мы открыто ведем дискуссию, потому что попытки изменить КИМЭП изнутри не увенчались успехом. Как известно, президент Назарбаев полностью поддерживал президента КИМЭП, Др. Чанг Янг Бэнга, что в свою очередь послужило оправданием для подавления оппозиции его стилю управления.

Доктор Бэнг действительно владеет КИМЭП, и это дает ему право управлять им так, как он того пожелает. Но КИМЭП пытается заполучить репутацию западного вуза, преподающего бизнес, менеджмент и гуманитарные науки. Он старается привлечь уважаемых западных преподавателей.

Доктор Бэнг также полностью доверился лишь нескольким главным администраторам, которым не хватает уважения и доверия со стороны их коллег. Этим «старшим» администраторам не хватает моральных и профессиональных навыков, в некоторых случаях они даже не занимали значимых преподавательских или административных позиций перед приходом в КИМЭП.

Многие верят, что даже старший вице-президент по академическим делам и декан по студенческим делам, которым Др. Бэнг делегировал большую часть своей власти и доверия, не имеют подходящего опыта, соответствующего занимаемым ими должностям. Список публикаций данных администраторов чрезвычайно беден, включая одного администратора, который опубликовал лишь одно исследование в 70-х.

Одним из основных вопросов, портящих репутацию КИМЭП, является финансовая заинтересованность Др. Бэнга и его семьи в нем.

КИМЭП, согласно его уставу, должен являться некоммерческим институтом. Практически все строительные и ремонтные работы на территории КИМЭП проводятся USKO-компанией, контролируемой Др. Бэнгом и его семьей.

КИМЭП часто публикует рекламные объявления о тендерах на контракт в различных газетах. Но все без исключения контракты выигрывает USKO, и не проводится независимая проверка тендерного процесса.

Например, не существует никаких записей, показывающих, что работы, такие как недавно завершенная библиотека, стоившая около 3 млн. долларов, не могли быть выполнены при более низких расходах другими компаниями. Необходима большая прозрачность в финансовых отношениях USKO-КИМЭП.

Существует вопрос: а действительно ли КИМЭП идет правильным финансовым путем? Большинство университетов получают значительную порцию своего дохода посредством грантов и пожертвований. КИМЭП не получает практически ничего.

Более чем 90% доход КИМЭП идет от оплаты за обучение, которая повышается примерно на 15% каждый год. Финансовое будущее университета представляется шатким.

Другой проблемой является то, что главные администраторы, которым доверяет Др. Бэнг, выказывают неуважение к западным преподавателям, в которых нуждается университет, чтобы поддерживать и улучшать качество образования.

Горстка «старших менеджеров», которых многие считают коррумпированными, некомпетентными и высокомерными, создала закрытую административную систему, которая является недемократичной и полна непотизмом и назначениями на посты по знакомству.

Контракты меняются после того, как иностранцы прибывают в Казахстан, зарплаты уменьшаются без уведомления или оправдания. Неуважение заставляет многих иностранцев покинуть КИМЭП через короткий период времени.

Другим примером несоответствующего стандартам управления и пренебрежения к административной ответственности является факт, что большинство «одноразовых» и действующих на постоянной основе комитетов заполнены одними и теми же людьми.

Попытка добиться пересмотра решения в одном из комитетов просто-напросто приведет вас к одним и тем же людям, с которыми вы имели дело раньше.

Они не смогли выполнить требования некоторых аккредитационных комитетов в прошлом и, несмотря на это, сейчас стараются получить другую в течение около двух лет. Они даже не смогли достичь регистрации этой Американской аккредитационной группой.

В то время как КИМЭП пытается активно достичь своей цели получить аккредитацию от США, такое бесстыдное, не соответствующее стандартам управление, финансовая коррупция и увольнение многочисленных преподавателей может только повредить институту, репутации Казахстана и его лидеров.

Настало время президенту Назарбаеву и его администрации прекратить это.

Пейман ПЕДЖМАН, бывший адъюнкт-профессор, Журналистика и СМИ

Др. Уильям М.Джей ХИКИ, «Фулбрайтовский» профессор, бывший преподаватель

Др. Патрик ГАННИНГ, бывший глава Департамента Экономики

Др. Майкл МАКХЬЮ, бывший глава Департамента Политологии

Инна ФРИМАН, приглашенный профессор, Департамент Маркетинга