According to NOKUTs rules and regulations about closing a school, it says that the responsibility of placing students in another institution lies with the college not NOKUT. the role of NOKUT is to work with the college and approve a plan that is legal. according to my understating OIBC came up with suggestions to nokut that would make the student get an education they started but NOKUT rubbished them and took it upon themselves the role of the libc to look for a solution for the students. if the options were not ok, why couldnt nokut come back to libc and ask for more work on a plan? NOKUT has to make it clear and public wether they really considered the options OIBC gave them. Thye cant just say that the option were not good enough without a detailed report to libc and the students on the criteria they used to evaluate the options and come up with their conclusion. NOKUT should br professional enough to do that rather than give general answers like not good enough. my understanding is that there was another college that was close to OIBC education and which was interested to help. did NOKUT contact them? If yes what was the progress. MF was not in the options that OIBC gave. how did it come into the picture. The fact the LUND , a senior director at NOKUT came from MF in January and the immediate former OIBC principal is now working at MF raises the questions wether this deal is clean. I know the KD promised money to an instidtion that will take over from OIBC: Can this be the driving motive? Lund was part of the revision process of OIBC and now gives his former employer the tilbud at the expense of other colleges which would have been better placed to help the students? is there a conflict of interest here? NOKUT rules say that incase the school is closed the student must be given a plan to complete the education they started. NOKUT in meetings with our student leaders have promised this one. We have more than five witnesses to this. Why do they settle for MF to give something different that the promised education. is this not illegal in itself. They can praise mf for helping but is what they are doing legal. it doesnt help to give a wrong medicine to the sick in the name of helping. is MF committing an irregularity. The students welfare is not at the center of this solution. i guess it may be money. MF says that it will not take all the students. What about the remaining students. Why cant NOKUT come up with a solution that can fit all the students. I smell a rat, they hurry to give a half solution and tell other students that those who will not qualify to mf they are still looking for another solution. what discriminate. why cant they find a solution for ll students and then come to the students. From our meeting with NOKUT and MF i feel OIBC is sidelined. OIBC is more than willing to takes its responsibly in this matter but it seems that are being sidelined. NOKUT called for the meeting without initially informing them? Why? is it a deliberate oversight or is it planned. I hope people and sculls are not opportunitist in this delicate matter just to get the money from KD and expand their schools at the expense of the students. NOKUT must sit with OIBc and come up with options that will give us the vocational training that we have started not a university level credits. It is possible. NOKUT must not break its own rules . they mud work harder and involve libc in this. They and MF should be ready to take responsibility legally for the solution they are giving. NOKUT must do a better job. When they were closing a school in the middle of a semester, they must have thought twice on how to handle the situation. I need answers to this many questions i have
Posted on: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:09:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015