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 Гульсум КУНЕЛЕКОВА

«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. http://www.megapolis.kz/show_article.php?art_id=3240

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.


Signatories:
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

Республика

Article from The Chronicle of Higher Education

Former employees of a university in Kazakhstan are advising colleagues to think twice before applying for jobs at an institution they say is undeserving of its claim as a premier American-style center of learning. Approximately 10 lecturers, professors, and deans have resigned, or been fired, over the past two years because of administrative abuses and shortcomings at the KIMEP, they say in a letter.
"You shouldn't bring Westerners 5-, 6-, 7,000 miles away from their home bases and treat them the way they do," said Peyman Pejman, a former associate professor of mass communications at the university and one of the writers of the letter. "One of my responsibilities as a journalist is to let other professors know what they're coming into."

Dana Stevens, director of international relations at the university, characterized the criticism as "standard sour-grapes stuff." Mr. Stevens acknowledged, however, that aspects of the letter have merit and may be attributed simply to "growing pains" as the institution evolves into a major undergraduate program.

"My sense is that while we're not perfect, we're a hell of a lot better than I thought we were going to be, and we're slowly getting better," he said by telephone.

"It's very hard to keep people here because of the type of people we get: We win some; we lose some. Sometimes we get some political fights, and we sort of ask people to leave — such as some of the people, I think, who are complaining."

The president of the university, Chan Young Bang, said in a letter to The Chronicle that Mr. Stevens did not speak for the institution. However, Mr. Bang has declined to comment personally or designate someone else to speak on behalf of the university.

Mr. Bang also said in the letter that faculty turnover at the institution "is reasonable given our Central Asia location."

The university, which is also known as Kimep, was founded in 1992 by Kazakhstan's autocratic president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who sought to establish on former Soviet territory an institution in the tradition of the best of what the United States offers.

Approximately 4,500 students have enrolled for the next semester in its undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs, which are taught exclusively in English. The institution grows by some 500 students annually, a rate that will require by 2010 the recruitment of about 20 Ph.D. holders to Almaty, a city of 1.2 million circled by white-capped mountains.

Unless conditions have improved, the new hires should expect their contracts and salaries to be compromised, said Pat Gunning, who was head of the university's economics department and a professor there. "What is it like to be a foreigner teaching at Kimep? The simple answer is 'insecure' in one's job," he wrote in an e-mail message.

Mr. Gunning said he resigned last year as department head, then was fired outright — for what Mr. Bang characterizes in the letter as "repeated gross misconduct" — less than a year into his four-year contract. Mr. Pejman resigned in June, a year into a three-year deal, after he was accused by a student of sexual misconduct.

Mr. Pejman says that he was accused unfairly, but the university lacked a clear policy on how to handle the matter. "We've since redone the entire disciplinary procedure… for the future, to protect him and everyone like him, as well as the accusers," Mr. Stevens said.

Some authors of the letter — which Mr. Pejman said has been mailed to newspapers and foreign embassies in Kazakhstan — are suing the university.

The critics describe instances of cronyism and plagiarism, elements of professional life that would run counter to the words of Mr. Bang, who writes on the institution's Web site that the university "has evolved into a premier world-class educational university — while maintaining the highest level of honesty and transparency."

Mr. Stevens says that all complaints are investigated rigorously and openly; most decision-making has been taken out of the hands of a "core of insiders."

Moreover, he said, all contracts with faculty are governed by a clear-cut code of practice, although salaries can rise and fall due to fluctuations in currency-conversion rates. The university is trying to right all the wrongs in order to meet the criteria for accreditation internationally, he added.

"Is Kimep a good place to work? Absolutely," Mr. Stevens said. "And we are looking forward to a new group of professors."

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Section: International
Article: Former Employees Criticize Conditions at Institute in Kazakhstan
By BRYON MACWILLIAMS ( bryon@online.ruThisThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it )
dated September 1, 2006
Volume 53, Issue 2, Page A73
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i02/02a07302.htm

Will anything change? Hardly!

From: settler < settler_777@yahoo.comThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
Date: Thu Jun 27, 2002 9:02 am
Subject: Will anything change? Hardly!

"Nomad" and Kazbek Seyilhanov, two KIMEP students, recently showed their dissatisfaction with KIMEP mismanagement and in their open letters explained their concerns.

Some people (Dr. Richard Faillace, Peg, Erlik Karazhan, Yelzhas) reacted by addressing or disputing some of the statements the two students made. In this text I do not want to address the specific event of KIMEP management or mismanagement; I will rather analyze the situation in general terms, from a distance, focusing on the logic and underlying principles rather than specific facts. I do not assert that KIMEP is mismanaged neither that KIMEP is well managed. So, the following paragraphs should be read starting always with a phrase "If KIMEP is mismanaged then so and so...". To save space, I will omit this phrase, however the reader should proceed knowing that my position towards KIMEP management or mismanagement is neutral.

First of all one thing which delights me: There are students in KIMEP who care, who are not afraid to raise the critical voice, to express their dissatisfaction. These are the signs that KIMEP is at least somehow successful in what it claims: educating future leaders and teaching western democracy. People like Nomad and Kazbek are the first individuals who show the signs of mature citizenship - it is worthwhile for them to spend a minute, think about the situation, write a critical article, and find courage to publish it. This is very promising for the future of Kazakhstan, which has still undeveloped democracy and citizenship in the Western sense.

Now let me start with a simple question: What will happen after Nomad's and Kazbek's letters were published? The answer is: Nothing. The same happened before: after critical remarks of Dr. Angotti, after parents meeting, after memoranda wrote to Dr. Bang by TACIS consultants, after the criticism by Dr. El-Namaki etc. Looks like any attempt to change the situation fails - Dr. Bang and his team continues to manage KIMEP the same way. Why? For "technical" (to lesser extent) and "systemic" (to larger extent) reasons.

First "technical" reasons: One general thing deeply rooted in the Soviet countries is the lack of communication, or even miscommunication. Successful system of communication includes worked-out communication means and channels through which smoothly flows information rich in relevant content, properly "packaged" (structured, formatted), properly timed etc. It includes recipients eager to listen and react. When necessary, parties meet and clarify their views, positions, explain their way of thinking. This process is permanent and, as part of organization structure and culture, develops into delicate network. In a well functioning organization the channels are well defined and supported (that includes financial investments, such as computer systems), and, perhaps even more importantly, people are trained how to communicate effectively: how to use the system, how to write a brief but informative memorandum, how to prepare meetings and prepare for the meetings, how to make sure that there is a follow-up, how to collect feedback, how to provide feedback etc. Unfortunately, the effective communication system in KIMEP is non-existent (although KIMEP claims to be in a position to teach the modern management practices including communication) , the current way of communicating is similar to Soviet-type institution. Let me ask again: Why? Perhaps because the better system waits to be developed, because there are no resources, specialists etc. So, if there is mismanagement in KIMEP, it is just incidental, it is because that management lacks information to make better decisions. (However, management which fails to obtain that information, fails in designing and implementing a good communication system, fails in training staff how to make efficient use of it, is a poor management.) Perhaps Dr. Bang and other top managers don't read student letters or TACIS memoranda (or even don't receive them), perhaps they don't subscribe to Yahoo! Kimep newsgroup (Nomad and Kazbek: What did you do to make sure that Dr. Bang receives your letters and has means familiar to him to react?) Or perhaps because the management doesn't need it (effective communication system). The management would not listen anyway, because the management pursues its own goals which may be incompatible with the goals of the rest of KIMEP community. The management doesn't need to know what students or faculty think, or even worse: the management doesn't want to make visible the difference between their goals and the goals of the rest. So the management not only doesn't need it, it doesn't want it. It doesn't want the communication system which would (arguably) show the student and faculty dissatisfaction, which would shed light (arguably) on various mismanagement practices. It doesn't want a democratic management system - a system with a written charter defining procedures such as flow of management information, where and how this information is generated, who receives it, and how it should be dealt with; a system in which students and faculty have a say in management, a system in which key management positions are staffed by elections (as Nomad quoted Dr. Chinapah: a system in which students are empowered to "fire their deans".)

However, the "technical" reasons are only marginal. More important reasons are "systemic". The previous paragraph already touched the issue. Let's assume (just a hypothesis) that the top management really has some odd goals and, what is perceived by Nomad and Kazbek, is not incidental, but intended. (If it is not intended then the solution is rather easy: let's sit together, discuss problems, make things transparent, make plan of changes, change the system where necessary, designate responsible people, and, if some of these people are incapable to produce satisfactory results in reasonable time, replace them.) Why the management can unscrupulously pursue their odd goals (again, it's just a hypothesis!) and nobody can stop them? Because there is nobody to stop them. First - it looks like quite a few people, possibly majority, is more or less happy with the current situation. Quite a few mediocre students are happy that they get their diplomas with relatively little pain and demands on them. Even unaccredited diplomas are good - good enough for local market (mediocre students don't have any higher aspirations), and good enough to show something to their parents. So why to bother with what's going on in KIMEP? Many good students don't bother either - they know that KIMEP diploma is not that important; they are rather getting ready for rapid career, establishing already their career record, working full time or part time, and not having time and interest to deal with KIMEP problems. The same with faculty and administration: quite a few of mediocre staff is happy to keep well paid jobs with an approach "don't bother me - I don't care as long as I get my paycheck". So in general it looks like this: mediocre students, faculty, and staff are happy, and majority of good students, faculty and staff are ignorant pursuing their own selfish interests, letting KIMEP to its own destiny. One of the systemic reasons is simply ignorance. (I remind the reader: I assume that there are problems in KIMEP for the purpose of this argument, but do not state it. Maybe there are no problems - then there is nothing to be "ignored" and everything is just fine). Ignorant, passive, uninterested majority perfectly inhibits any lonely calls for change of few caring individuals. The management doesn't need to react, doesn't need to do anything - the ignorance will do it. Ignorance is part of immature democracy and citizenship: a true citizenship requires interest and desire to participate (recognition of a problem), freedom of thinking and ability of critical evaluation (analysis of a problem and taking own's position), personal courage (to speak up), human concern (willingness to help others, to support a common goal), and respect for the truth (the concept that any injustice, even if done to somebody else, unknown and unrelated, concerns me, and I should, as much as possible, react - raise my voice, support those who suffer, and fight with the cause of the injustice). This and only this is a real basis of any liberal democracy, thanks to many such people (and blood of these people) in the past and present we (or at least some nations) enjoy democracy today. The difference between a society with a really functioning democracy and a pseudo-democracy (such as in Kazakhstan) is in the grass roots - in the nature, character, and behavior of individuals. (I do not claim that every citizen of, let's say, Holland, actively participates in public life, is honest etc. But their forefathers set up the system of the "invisible hand" with its own inertia and build-in self-protection features. This system is kept alive by relatively few "active" individuals - nation's elite. Thanks to the system and the elite maintaining it and asserting the values such as love of freedom, rule of law, and tolerance to minority opinions, even "passive" individuals receive benefits of functioning democracy). This ignorance (arguably) extends beyond KIMEP - it is reinforced with the ignorance of government bodies, media etc. There is no one to listen to the few voices calling for attention, no one daring to stand up and do something - write an article, question the management, ask for explanation, run an inspection (or is it again because of communication problem - because they don't know? Is it because Nomad didn't address his letter to board of trustees, media, ministry of education, or president Nazarbaiev's office, who is a patron of KIMEP?)

Ignorance is however only a part of the picture. The next part is inexperience, incapability. If one stops to be ignorant and wants to do something, one must know what to do and how to do it. Let me again assume that there are problems in KIMEP, and imagine that one day KIMEP miraculously relocates to some democratic country, and KIMEP students quickly learn the basic lessons of democracy. What would be (roughly) observed in, let's say, Holland, Germany, or USA?

First of all don't forget that now we are in a liberal country. The owner (let's assume Dr. Bang is an owner for a while) can manage the way he wants, as long as it is legal (no fraud, no misleading advertising, no unfair competition practices etc.). The customers (students or parents) have a choice to select KIMEP, or not to select KIMEP. As long as customers (or sufficiently large niche of customers) keep selecting KIMEP, it must be good choice for them, and everything is fine. If KIMEP has severe problems (perceived not by few individuals but by majority), the word would spread, the students would stop coming and KIMEP would eventually cease to exist. Simple self-regulatory free market process.

There are two problems here: misleading advertising and falsely created image (potential students learn only later that there are problems) and what to do with students who have already enrolled. Reputation develops over time. No company can succeed fooling their customers for a long time - any advertising is helpless if the product or service is simply not good. In some cases misleading advertising can be the ground for product return, or legal action (remember that we have miraculously moved to a Western democracy!). But how to return to a student two-three years of "wasted" time (to return tuition money could be requested by the judge), if he is not receiving in KIMEP what he expected to receive? Or if he doesn't get accredited diploma in spite of the promises? What can such students do? These questions should be asked even more if Dr. Bang is not an owner but just an entrusted manager - in that case he may not manage in the way he likes and just wait what the market will do - he is obligated to manage in the interest of owners (in our case the government and the people of Kazakhstan) - doing to the contrary may be reason for his firing or even legal
action against him. A good government, then, must step in and perform regular inspections, analyses, opinion surveys etc. to make sure that there is no mismanagement - in other words, it must care, too.

For students who are already enrolled and experience mismanagement there is a plethora of ways to react:

1. Set up a student organization. Some western universities have strong organizations similar to trade unions - students pay membership fee (some universities even require that all students pay the contribution no matter whether they actively participate or not), other universities provide funds and other support to the organization from the university budget. Organization uses the money to run its own office, obtain equipment (computer/phone/fax), and secretariat (sometimes student volunteers, at large universities even paid workers, or paid students who receive in this way the financial aid). Students then elect the organization's president and other representatives. The procedures can be detailed in a constitution or organization charter.

2. Set up organization of parents. Can be organized similarly as student organization, can be attached to student organization.

3. Both organizations represent and protect students' and parents' interests. They maintain communication channels inside the organization (list of emails of all students and parents, list of mailing addresses), and channels of communication with the university management and external bodies (media, government agencies). Individual students and parents may raise concerns and issues with their representatives. Organization representatives then discuss the problem, question the management, and issue official statement. If the solution is not found the organization can organize meetings, debates, or other events. The role of such organization is usually not only political - it also organizes clubs, entertainment, invites guest speakers, and is active in many other ways in the time of "peace".

4. In the time of "war", i.e. in case of severe problems (such as, as Nomad claims, in KIMEP) there are means and ways for collective action. These start from an exchange of memoranda between student organization and management, creation of joint working committee composed of management and student representatives which works to solve the problem, informing the board of trustees or other superior body (ministry of education, organization which granted accreditation), and, in extreme cases, strikes. Strike can be a symbolic one - students communicate their concerns and requirements to the management, and, for example, wear a specific clothing (all supporters dress in black, or wear some visible sign of support attached to their clothing), while classes continue. More severe form of a strike is that students stop coming to classes, or even occupy the building. Sometimes students come to classes but instead of having class read poetry or have political discussion of the issues in question (with invited guest speakers and representatives of media). Or students occupy administrative building, office of the dean etc. (Keep in mind: we are in a hypothetical Western country; check here what is legal and what is not and follow the procedures prescribed by the law!)

Students can also organize a demonstration in front of management offices, roll out slogans, have speeches, in the extreme case throw a few tomatoes against office walls (I simply list all the possible ways to react as they could be and sometimes are experienced in a functioning western democracy). If the institution requires paying the tuition - an obvious form of severe protest is collective non-payment of the tuition money. Qualified legal advise is a must in any severe form of protest - lawyers can be hired with student organization's money (in a western democracy in case of severe problems, quite typically a lot of support will come for free just from sympathetic supporters - journalists, human rights organizations etc.).

To finish, let me say that in most situations any form of extreme protest is never used - the problems get usually solved before they get that far. Just the threat of employing these forms makes the management listen and respond carefully to any allegations; listen and respond with a carefulness proportional to problem's escalation. Because there is no such mechanism now (because of either the content with the status quo, ignorance, or inexperience), the result of Nomad's and similar letter is simply nothing - they don't even deserve a reply letter from the management. Very finally: Don't be fooled into thinking that somebody will bring the democracy for you on a silver platter. Democracy can't be granted; it has to be deserved, worked through, fought over.

Concerned about KIMEP

Dear KIMEP community, This is to express my serious concerns about the future of KIMEP and comment on some issues mentioned in the article.

"It is the responsibility of the students of the Republic of Kazakhstan to question their instructors, professors and administrations. It is their duty, the duty of their parents and of the citizens of their nation to demand that education in this Republic is honest. Without such an outcry, and without the moral indignation to demand rights and respect, both inside and outside the classroom to ensure honesty in education, no government or administrator will care." Richard Faillace, Ph.D., "Freedom of Education in Kazakhstan", KIMEP Times, #5 (38), February 2002

CONCERNED ABOUT KIMEP

Dear KIMEP community, This is to express my serious concerns about the future of KIMEP and comment on some issues mentioned in the article.

Firstly please be noted that all below-mentioned statements are based on my own observations, some documents and interviews with some people most of whom wished to stay anonymous. For the reasons of protecting my sources and myself, I cannot disclose and refer to any specific names.

Let's start with "nationally recognized" statement from the article. I should remind you that we were promised twice by the administration that KIMEP would get accredited by the Ministry of Education of Kazakhstan. Once it was supposed to happen in November 2001, but later it was explained that there are some problems with the ministry. We were told again that accreditation would be complete by April 2002. However, as you see we are not still accredited even by the Ministry of Education not to mention any other foreign accreditation agencies. The explanation that we have a different language of instruction and documentation is not a very sound reason for this delay since Suleyman Demirel University, another similar western-style institution in Almaty, was accredited long time ago by local government bodies.

Next comes Dr. Bang, USA scholar (?!) and the president of KIMEP. To be frank, I would have called him a smart businessman rather than a scholar interested in KIMEP's development as a non-profit educational institution. There is an evident conflict of interests about his presence at KIMEP. He has great business interests in Kazakhstan. He has wide network of warehouses across the country and he owns real estate properties such as many villas in Almaty countryside mostly rented to foreign ambassadors.

USKO, his private company in Kazakhstan, has already entered diversified local markets varying from construction to telecommunications. Though KIMEP is still a state-owned institution, which requires administration to organize open bids for any significant acquisition, I could not see any other supplier except USKO supplying all new furniture and equipment, doing most of the repair works. According to some undergraduate students who have done a research project about construction industry in Almaty, USKO offers one of the highest prices for its products and services. So I'm really doubtful that KIMEP organizes open bids and USKO is doing all these works at fair market prices. The cost of new canteen is estimated to be more than $400,000 which is really a waste of money while we do not have enough appropriate reading materials and qualified staff and faculty. In Dr. Bang's perspective, investing in books and teachers may not be a very wise investment decision since he cannot expect any financial return later. According to KIMEP's balance sheet as of December 31, 2000, "Property, plant and equipment, net" is valued at less than $700,000 which is a really funny figure for all KIMEP's premises including nice centrally-located buildings, huge land, dormitory, etc. Only new canteen makes up more than half of all these real estate properties!

According to Dr. Bang's Entrusted Management Contract concluded with Kazakhstan government, he has to make certain amount of investments each year to fulfill his obligations as the president of school. All his investments mentioned above would be considered as part of his price offer to buy out KIMEP next year in August when it will be offered for privatization. So with all his investments up to this moment, which come back to his pocket through USKO maybe even in a greater amount, would probably be just enough to acquire all KIMEP's property next year at a very cheap cost for him. So his strategic goal looks like as to become owner of KIMEP's real estate property. Otherwise he would consider bringing teachers and buying books instead of illegally distributing them and charging money for copies (?!). We cannot think of any accreditation if KIMEP continues breaching copyright laws. Teachers and books are direct costs relevant to KIMEP's core business that is to provide high quality education, and these costs should be given a priority instead of wasting money on nice toilets and canteens. It's funny that the Department of Business Administration, the core department at KIMEP, has only one professor with a western Ph.D. It's really funny to see "Masters teaching Masters"! Next issue in the article is about donor organizations and universities KIMEP claims to have cooperation with. I have not seen any significant cooperation except with all those listed universities except with the Korean Women's university. All other relations just seem to be spontaneous but not intended strategic network building, e.g., Dr. Leibert has brought James Karlin from North Dakota university and called this as "cooperation". Maastricht School of Management (MSM) was here because of TACIS, European Community sponsored project, and all other relations don't seem to be the first intended step of KIMEP's administration.

Story with donors is also misleading information. TACIS has finished its project after investing in KIMEP more than 10 million euros in almost 10 years, and I don't think they will stay here any longer. Dr. Eric Cornwell, who once used to be a dean here, hinted during conference devoted to accreditation issues held in Bishkek last fall that KIMEP would never get accreditation in Europe unless Dr. Bang leaves KIMEP. My impression is that European Union is not willing to invest any money in a place which is not transparent and where conflicts of interests exist. I remember how Dr. Ottavio Angotti left KIMEP. Dr. Angotti, our loveliest dean and guru of accounting who was provided and paid by USAID, faced significant difficulties in implementing his ideas and encountered strong resistance from administration. We still remember him saying "...don't believe them..." pointing out Mr. Rahman's side. After this conflict, USAID withdrew Dr. Bojan Popovic, another professor provided by them. I am really suspicious about USAID's support to KIMEP nowadays. So due to the lack of transparency and mismanagement at KIMEP, we have lost most of our sponsors and donor organizations. This is quite normal matter of facts because anyone would be reluctant to invest in such a stinking place. I think I should also mention the case of Dr. El Namaki, our previous dean who suddenly left KIMEP after being only several months here. Dr. El Namaki, a scholar and consultant to many international organizations, a board member of several foreign well-respected accreditation agencies, founder and reformist of many business schools around the world including MSM and many other programs, honored us by his acceptance to manage KIMEP's academic programs. However, he was surely disappointed by what he found here. He also faced strong resistance from Mr. Rahman, Vice-President and key person of Dr. Bang at KIMEP, Ph.D. physicist or whatever he claims to be, and all other management people who are probably seriously concerned about keeping their jobs. Dr. El Namaki, a person with a vision and great experience in strategic management, offered administration to restructure KIMEP. Dr. Bang accused him of being undemocratic, but I have personally witnessed his open-door policy. He created taskforce teams consisting of faculty members to research current situation of academic programs and to assist him formulate improvement strategies. Of course, Dr. El Namaki was right by expressing his unwillingness to work with physicists! Dr. Bang naturally preferred Mr. Rahman instead of Dr. El Namaki who might have threatened his business interests in KIMEP. Dr. El Namaki had a vision about KIMEP and proposed many ways to make KIMEP truly leading institution in Central Asia. Under his management, KIMEP would receive foreign accreditation much easier and earlier than what our current administration promises us because he has personally participated and managed accreditation applications for other institutions whereas none of current professors at KIMEP have ever dreamed about it! Dr. El Namaki was tired of endless attempts of communicating his vision and ideas to the management. He had better alternatives to opt and now, he is the president of Montreal International School of Management (MISM) in Canada. Upon his departure, I heard that all people who supported him were pressured by the administration.

Well, I could not see anything meaningful about administration except those endless plots and games going on behind the scenes. As you should have already heard, KIMEP didn't apply for membership in Central Asian Foundation for Management Development (CAMAN) which is engaged in accreditation issues for Central Asian schools and supported by European Union. CAMAN was founded by Almaty School of Management, part of International Academy of Business. University of International Business, another competitor of KIMEP, is also an active participant in CAMAN activities. Recently, CAMAN members have been invited to world forum in Bangkok dedicated to management education to introduce Central Asian business schools to a global community of management institutions. CAMAN's 3-day trip to Thailand is to be sponsored by USAID.

I cannot just close my eyes behind the fact that KIMEP is not there! By the way, another important competitor is entering market. Kazakh-British university has recently been founded in Almaty by the support of British government. I also heard that it's informally backed by very influential people. They got Akimat's old huge building and many professors from Europe are invited to teach there. So the competition is getting tougher. I remembered a funny story about President's scholarships. Some people told me how our administration arranged this scholarship that is claimed to be from Mr. Nazarbaev. They just contacted President's assistants and asked if they can use his name but pay money themselves. So what KIMEP administration calls "Presidential Scholarship" is actually our own money. This is surely a clever PR strategy as well as using President's name aside with KIMEP's.

To sum up, I think we are being mismanaged and misinformed. I am sure that if the President and other government people knew our problems, they would have taken necessary actions to prevent this gradual degradation of our school. I am really upset that most of KIMEP students are not concerned and interested in KIMEP's future. I guess many people think that they will just cut ties with KIMEP after graduation and walk out without any concern getting a diploma which actually is only a piece of paper. However, we must be concerned about KIMEP since its reputation and quality of education would become an intangible asset for the rest of our lives. I don't want to see one day that KIMEP will be traded in auctions as a nice real estate property. I remember Dr. Chinapah, UNESCO official who had a guest lecture at KIMEP, saying "Nowadays, students, as the major customers of modern and progressive educational institutions, are being empowered greatly, and even in some place given authority to fire their deans. This tendency of active participation of students in important management decisions should be celebrated...."

As I told before, no names of sources are disclosed, but most of things mentioned could be verified if you investigate the situation. If you are interested in making your contribution to change this situation, please keep track of all events happening around you and don't hesitate to say your "YES" or "NO". This is our school, and if you are convinced you should do something, DO IT NOW and do it smart! I welcome KIMEP administration to give explanations to my concerns if they have any comments..