/nginx/o/2015/05/22/4094041t1he564.jpg)
Election of Rector for Tallinn University of Technology (TUT) has evolved into a bad case of a PR-travesty. Should board of governors (BofG) chairman Sandor Liive not decisively change his current trend, the farce – humiliating towards those involved and damaging to TUT reputation – could carry on for weeks.
At that, the BofG members supporting Jaak Aaviksoo headed by entrepreneur Toomas Luman and Sandor Liive may still not have their way, the elections then repeated.
Namely, TUT’s 41-member council is set to convene next week, with powers to veto electing the Rector at two thirds majority of votes. Even with no veto, the selfsame 11-member BofG must confirm the Rector at two thirds majority i.e. a minimum of eight yes-votes. In case four members stand their ground, yes-votes will only be seven. Thereby, the entire process thus far would be cancelled out. All that will have happened is the damage, to varying degrees, regarding reputation of participants.
Especially weird to send ballot papers by BofG members to forensic examination to find out whether the last round of votes – eight for and three against – was correct. In his analysis (EPL, June 9th), sworn lawyer Jaanus Tehver wrote that «as a solution to this situation, forensic examination is totally inadequate» and explained why so. «Unavoidably, one gets the impression that forensic examination in this case is nothing but a PR-trick where the picture is painted of thorough inspection while the actual will to solve the problem is lacking,» wrote Mr Tehver.
Even when setting aside all the technical and essential issues related to the examination and the elections procedure, assuming that the tests would yield a totally true assessment of who voted what, all it amount to is splitting hairs. At best, it would be fertile ground for fresh accusations about «who is lying». Essentially, it makes no difference if any of the four who say they voted against even accidentally ticked the wrong box. Thinking of the appointment of the Rector, what matters is that four BofG members have publicly confirmed they wanted to vote against. Allegedly, it was also obvious in the conversations at the BofG meeting who stood for who. The two thirds demand is essentially meant to ensure that the candidate picked is indeed supported by majority.
In explanatory memorandum to Tallinn University of Technology Act, we read that the idea to increase the role of board of governors, largely invited form the outside as honourable individuals, was to better tie the university to the goals of the state and the society. Now, the BofG and its chairman should find a civil and substantial solution, one that would reconcile the parties involved, and stop the PR-show.