Meeting with professors and students at the Faculty of Geology and Mining, Polytechnic University of Tirana:
PM Rama: If there is a real concern about the university, then this concern has been expressed through a protest and students have put forward a number of demands that should be treated with the decision-makers. In my view, it is absurd to waste more time and energy leaving an unsettled issue between students and the government as a topic has been put forward by students and should be tackled together. By saying this issue should be solved together I mean the government and the university as a considerable share of these issues are directly related to the functioning of the deaneries and rectories.
I am really interested in listening to how students conceive fulfilment of these demands in formal terms, how do they think such demands can be addressed without being discussed first and without figuring out and analysing all the issues that have been raised. Some of the demands are clear and such is the case of the Student Card, although I can highlight few things we have already done regarding the Student Card prior the protest.
I have just read their demands and I have heard the call “meet the demands!” You are united in this call and the issue is here, it is pending. You have to understand, the government is not a store to which a message is sent and the item you order is delivered to you. You have to understand that in this case, I and the government are not refusing to meet the students’ demands, because we might also disagree. We could have well said we disagree on these demands and we can’t meet them, or we don’t want to fulfil them as they are not compatible with our opportunities or they run counter our plans. We haven’t and we don’t intend to say the first, neither the second. We are saying “yes”, we fully agree these are important demands that need to be addressed, and not only them, but also many other issues need to be tackled and we need to talk about all of these. Meanwhile, what I have heard, as much as I have managed to receive from that wave of voiced behind the barricade, is that many other important issues have not been written on the list of eight demands. Each university has its own specifics, but they all share the eight demands. For example, the University of Architecture has some specific things, this faculty certainly has its own specifics that doesn’t concern other faculties, but yet these specifics should be discussed since this is the best time to have a sense of all things that need to be done.
Why these eight requests cannot be addressed without dialogue? Because we would not understand what would be considered a fulfilled demand then. The first demand has to do with the taxpayers’ contribution to the education system and the halving the tuition fees. But both need to be discussed. First, why the budget spending on education cannot increase to 5% of the GDP neither this year, nor the next year, and nor after three years. Second, why this 5% increase talk on education spending has been introduced? Who did this? Either he didn’t know what he written down, or he has done it intentionally so that it can never be fulfilled? But, this is not the essence. 5% is the education spending percentage of GDP, while we should talk about the percentage the public education sector receives from the state budget and this is something else.
I agree on the issue of the university fees. First, fee cutting is out of question, because these are cost-based fees, but it is all about getting the state to increase its contribution to halve these tariffs. This issue needs also to be discussed as students are asking for the society to cover all education cost equally for the excellent students and the poorly performing students. I don’t think so. Cutting university fees by 50 means halving them for every student. I don’t agree. We want to cut the tuition fee by 100 percent and not 50%. And you should bear in mind that the number of excellent students to date is estimated over 10.00. But we want to further expand the excellence band – and this needs to be discussed – by including students scoring grades nine and ten. I think we should grant more to these students as they fully deserve it. How about cutting the tuition fee by more than 50 percent for the students scoring 8 and 9, because they are still considered very good performing students. The students coming from families being treated under the social assistance scheme should also be eligible for the tuition fee cut by more than 50%. They are currently entitled to benefit it, but municipal authorities refuse to grant it. This issue needs to be tackled too.
Plus, how about awarding a scholarship to all students scoring 9 and 10 grades and students coming from needy families? How about halving the tuition fee for students scoring 7 and 8? One may think that such a proposal should include also students scoring six grades. However, it is entirely a financial calculation that needs to be discussed. But why the society should pay for the poorly performing students? Tell me the reason why should the society keep paying for this category? On the other hand, I do personally think that they too should be granted an opportunity, but this too needs to be discussed. If this will be granted to everyone, then this category should also benefit during the first academic year. If they improve their performance, then they will benefit just like everyone else, if not, then it would be better for them to attend a vocational education school instead of wasting their parents’ money? Should all these needs to be discussed, or not?
If the government will grant all these without engaging first in a dialogue, then some might say: “We didn’t demand this. It was something else.” What would happen then? Nothing. Everything would start over again. So, a protest cannot communicate with the government through the loudspeakers, or from the balcony. The loudspeaker is needed up to the moment when you should sit in the table of talks with others. What is this story suggesting that whoever siting down to talk is a traitor?! What would do the betrayal you would commit even you would have wished to do so? First, nobody is asking you to betray anything. It would be quite different, and it has actually previously happened, should the government tells you go back to the classroom and then we can talk. No negotiations can take place with those taking the streets. There are governments that do exactly this. I am not calling for the protest to stop; neither am I setting preconditions. What I am saying is that we should talk.
The talk that whoever agrees to dialogue is a traitor is an unprecedented story. Will you be signing any document secretly, or are you taking over responsibility to talk with others? Zero, none of these. Whoever of you has been protested, I invite them to do so again, but you are looking at the man whom you have been asking to address certain issues because of my duty.
Here I am. Stand up and say how do you see this situation? What should happen, according to you, so that you would say “ok, our demands were met and we are now going home,” because I am really curious to find out how. I have spoken with a lot of people individually and nobody has been able to tell me this. When you start reasoning, you acknowledge that you are under pressure. What pressure? Now in 2018, the basic principle is being questioned as the dean says: “I haven’t invited you.” If I were the dean, I would have invited the Prime Minister to talk without any precondition.
The idea is how to solve this matter, and not stay behind barricades. What are you going to win by doing so? You may stay for two years there, but what are you going to win? Meanwhile, I am interested not only to solve these issues, but go even further. But we can do so only by talking, understanding and agreeing with each other. Everything can happen because of the lack of communication, especially here in the protest that features all kind of intentions and currents. But I am not going to deal with the group that is seeking to monopolize the protest and that has already taken the protest hostage.
Who are those people who tell the others not to talk? Do you ask yourself this question?
They are doing so because they don’t want the situation to be resolved. If they want it to be resolved, then talks should be held. We took out to protest against a regime and not against a government. We took out to protest not for demands like the ones you have put forward, but against a regime and the goal was how to sit in the table with the region and not only no one branded someone “a betrayer’, but quite the contrary; the individuals who attended the meeting, became heroes, while those who spoke up were at the forefront. None of those who took the floor and defended their ideas were suspicious. Back then there were people who also might have crossed their minds, but they were all united in their goal to oust the regime. The call “not to talk” is insane. How is this going to be solved? By blocking the road to dialogue? What are going to win by doing so? I am repeatedly calling for you to sit and dialogue. You are neither forced to agree, or go out and try to convince others that dialogue worked. People should sit, speak, listen and start to understand.
Here we are. Say whatever you want and above all help me to understand how do you imagine fulfilment of your demands when you say “meet them and then we can talk.” May be someone of you knows what do you mean by saying it, but I haven’t found that someone yet. A student is protesting and saying: “Meet my demands and we talk afterwards.” Ok, but how demands can be met without talking first? It’s a puzzle with me having to figure out what everyone have in their minds. The thing is that solutions should be a result of dialogue, including the pressing issues that concern the university today.
The dean of the Geology and Mining Faculty: You already know that besides the eight demands put forward by the student protest, the Faculty of Geology is concerned about the fate of the faculty building. It has been a debated issue for four years now. We have been communicating with you over the faculty building problem and you have literally told me – and my colleagues know it well – that “you are right where you have always been. Nobody will evict you from there without creating the optimal conditions for the academic and teaching activity first and your most reply has been as following: “Don’t deal with non-existing issues.” This was your response. I had this conviction since you called us to attend a meeting at the Maps Hall, where I introduced myself neither like Putin, nor like Medvedev, but as the newly-elected dean of the Geology and Mining Faculty. I took the floor back then to speak about the way how do I consider the mandate we received. I said it is a great challenge, and if you remember, I turned to the audience saying: “Dear deans, I face a fourth challenge, that of the Geology and Mining Faculty building.” You made a statement and I created the conviction that the government will not evict us from the current building without creating the optimal conditions first. It was that simple.
With regards to the student protest, I want to say that on the very first day of the protest I told students that Prime Minister has said “yes” to each of the eight demands put forward by students. But ways should be explored how and when some of these demands should be met. For example, the issue of scanning the academic degrees of the university professors is a process that takes time and it can’t be addressed by taking the streets and through protests. This is a process that takes “how and when it should be carried out.” If you were to ask me about this issue – I told students – it is neither me, nor the university, or the Ministry of Education or the Prime Minister the ones that can solve this problem. I think that an independent commission should be set up by the Parliament. As a professor I have expressed my support for students, but at the same time I feel moral responsibility.
PM Edi Rama: Considering what the dean said, though briefly, I believe it is pretty clear why dialogue is imperative. Let’s consider the vetting proposal. The ones you see here are attending the meeting solely to take notes and I want to collect all these notes, because, for example, the idea of involving the Parliament in the process of reviewing the academic degrees has not been put forward to date. I mean it takes just five minutes and should something surfaces then it is worth considering. We have certainly though about each demand and I want to confirm you all that we will absolutely meet all of them. So if you keep protesting for fun, or, I don’t know, because someone has cast a spell on you, or you have other intentions – this is up to you – but if you insist on your demands, they will be all met. So the question now is quite simple. It is no longer “what?”
Should we cut the tuition fee rates in half? Yes.
Should we provide the university budget transparency? Yes
Should we improve the living conditions in the dormitories? Yes
Should we develop and grant the student card? Yes
Should we do what the dean said? Yes.
The question now is “how” and not “what.” “What” is quite clear, but “how” and “when?” But if I am visiting Vlora today and pledge: “I will build the Water Promenade.” As soon as I return to Tirana, on the very next morning, the Vlora citizens ask: “Where is the Promenade?” (Lungomare). I pledge we will build the Vlora airport and Vlora citizens ask “where to buy flight tickets.” But, since you study geology, you know quite well what it takes to build the airport. You should first carry out the feasible study, the geological study and then deal with the digging. The airport’s geological study alone is an entire story in itself. But Vlora citizens don’t care about this. “Where we can buy the flight tickets? Where is the airport?” – they ask.
Therefore, as to the university vetting process, we have mulled a more objective and technical approach, without involving the human element, or commissions, but, based on a general law and regulation, each doctoral degree, which is a national wealth and as such should be deposited at the National Library, we will ask every academic degree holder to digitalize his or her work and send it to the National Library. A scanning process will then take place there and based on a software results we will find out everything. Then an appeal process will ensue that will include the opposition and objections and an appeal commission will be set up based on certain criteria. Involvement of the Parliament to address this issue is another element that can be taken into account.
As to the Geology Faculty building, we are right where we used to be. Not only we are right where we used to be precisely as it used to be since the very first day. I have told you that if the Geology Faculty will be housed in another building, we will first care to create all necessary conditions. But nothing will happen for the time being. We have applied for a funding from the German Government that has pledged to support us for the School of Magistrates building. We have practically asked for an equal funding for your faculty building. In no way are we going to ask you to leave the building, because the School of Magistrates will take over instead and you will remain without a building.” Quite the contrary. You will be housed in a building equipped according to best standards in terms of laboratories and other necessary conditions. It won’t happen overnight, but whenever it happens it will be just like I am saying.
Meanwhile, with regards to the secondary university revenues. A number of your faculty professors, who undoubtedly have both academic and practical experience, are attending this meeting. Just like there are a lot of students who might be ready, or may involve in a process that is called scientific research. The scientific research term may sound big, yet in a cooperation process with the Ministry tasked with managing the country’s natural resources and mines, to provide consultancy and develop the project. Each Ministry dealing with areas related to these universities should develop a special cooperation programme with the university.
For example, let’s suppose that the university will tasked with the inspection of the geotechnical conditions in the country’s mines – a process that is currently being carried out by inspectorates and that involves corruption actions – then the university will be asked to “conduct full study and a final report on the geotechnical and safety situation in our mines that are currently being exploited by private companies.” Such a move would involve a due accord with the agreement, stipulating that a share of the funding will be earmarked for the study’s authors, who are a group of students and their professors, and a share of it will be allocated to the university itself. If we were to talk about an amount of 50 000 euros, then imagine if this amount is estimated 100 euros that is allocated by the Ministry to the university for a certain project.
At the same time, we are also exploring ways to create a number of jobs in the public administration that will be made available to the best performing students. For example, a number of jobs in the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy, the Natural Resources Inspectorate, or the Natural Resources Agency are part of the civil servant system and are filled through relevant tests by the Public Administration Department. So, although you might be an excellent-performing students, the Public Administration Department turns down your applications, arguing that you lack the working experience. That’s why we want to create a number of vacancies open to the best performing students from the Geology and Mining Faculty and they will be recruited without having to sit a test. They will be hired based on their performance in the government jobs that the Ministry will offer to students from the Geology and Mining Faculty. In this way, they will create the required working experience and they can then sit the test and earn the civil servant status just like everyone else. We are thinking about things like this. But how can this be done? Because I am convinced the dialogue in this case is not necessary, but it is compulsory. So, an idea starts taking shape according to plan in mind.
The plan I have in mind is to exhaust all talks with every university and not with a group of representatives from the student protest. Talks with such representatives are held to negotiate issues when conflicts happen. There is no conflict here and therefore no negotiations are needed. We are just holding discussion on the eight demands. We are discussing the university life as a whole. We want to be ready to present you with a written document, with a Pact between the Government and the University within a reasonable time. The document will include an analysis of the situation and ways to address not only eight, but 10, 12, 15 various issues.
Tariff cutting? The Pact will define the way and the final fees.
The student card? Times ago we have engaged in negotiations with the French Government to develop a European student card. It is a European Union-funded project and an agreement has been already reached with France since November 20. It is a written agreement. The idea is to provide a student card that will be equally valid here and in the European Union. So, it means that whenever an Albanian student travels abroad, he will be entitled to benefit just like any student in the EU member states when they visit a museum, go to a library or use a train. This is what we are trying to do. We want to make sure that the student card is not an invalid document for its holder. We are also working and several commercial agreements with shops and other service businesses will be reached and we have been working on that much earlier than this history was about to begin. However, this is all talk for the time being and one rightly might say: “We have heard all of these, but when the student card will be ready?” We need to discuss, sit and talk about it and define the specifics of the Student Card and the time when the document will be launched. Will it be provided to everyone at once or at stages? This is an issue that needs to be examined technically, because producing such a card involves a number of issues, including the cost-related issues, so that not a useless party membership-like document is produced.
Student: I am a master degree program student. I want to raise a number of issues, mostly concerning our faculty, without excluding the eight demands which I personally support and fully agree that no discussion is needed on those eight demands as they are minimalist demands that the government can fully fulfil for the students of its country. You were actually lucky enough we welcomed you here in one of the most luxurious rooms of our faculty, because it would have been better should this meeting were to be held in other rooms where we gather every day to attend our lessons. The students of the master degree program learn in two classrooms that could be well-called cellars and this is our main problem. Second, I want to raise our concern regarding the practice program. As everyone knows, a profession doesn’t involve theory only, but also practice. The last year’s master program students attended only a week practice program. I think the same will happen with us as everyone else has done in the previous years. We need more practice programs. Meanwhile, our faculty building is in an absolutely disturbing state.
PM Edi Rama: You are “the first traitor in this whole story and you will be long remembered as such.” I am sorry, but would anyone raise the concern over the practice program should this meeting was not to take place? I have never heard about this, just like I haven’t come across many other issues as I am not obliged to know everything. Can this problem be raised via a loudspeaker? No, it can’t. You could have had done it via the Instagram, but you haven’t done so. Then how it can be done? Such a concrete issue can be raised in such a meeting only! You are asking for longer than one-week practice program. This is a topic that needs to be discussed, because I can’t promptly say yes right now, because I am not here to put an end to the protest and I don’t even want for the protest to end. It is up to you to decide whether you take or you don’t take to the streets to protest. I am here to listen you and you should also listen to me so that we create an understanding with each other on what you are asking for and on what I want to do and how these can be solved by working all together. You are not another person from what you used to be during the protest in the boulevard earlier today. You are the very same person. But you took the floor and raised a problem. You can go on protesting tomorrow again, yet you gave a contribution and besides that I and we all learned something new. This is dialogue. We will do whatever we can do.
Some of the demands are minimalist, but, to be clear, cutting tuition fees in half is not minimalist. It has a huge impact on the budget. However, I believe you are right because although the teaching-cost per student – and professors know better this – is higher than the tuition fee. I don’t exactly know the percentage of the state’s contribution to the Geology and Mining students, but the state budget covers 75 percent of the student costs.
You said this is the VIP room. If this room is considered the VIP room, then no great sacrifice is made in other rooms and dormitories. I don’t whether you become familiar with the debate I launched with the Academy of Science earlier this year that each Academy member receives a monthly salary of over 2 million lek. We can’t afford paying such high salaries, because we will earmark a share of the funding for the university’s online scientific library. By building the online scientific library we would address a lot of issues as you will no longer need to go to the Faculty of Economics but you can individually access the Scientific Library just like any other European student. This is something already underway as procedures have been launched. We relaunched the whole procedure and the contract will be finalized hopefully within January and the online Scientific Library will become available to every student of all fields. This is what is going to happen now. Than the university library will be build step by step, but the online scientific library will become operational immediately.
University proffesor: I would like to raise several problems regarding the university. I fully agree about the students’ demands. Their demands are totally feasible. I mean it is completely natural for everyone to aspire to better things. You are also right regarding the dialogue, because it would be absurd if we demand something and reject dialogue. But you also know that young people are too expressive. Therefore, I think we should find a middle course, an alternative so that further steps are taken towards addressing this problem, because students have boycotted classes for two weeks now. As a university professor, I am really sorry and I feel extremely bad at seeing empty auditoriums. This is painful. They say this is an excuse, but this excuse may last long. I think a solution an alternative option and solution must be found. I would say that what students did is the best thing they have done to date.
The universities should undergo a detailed scanning in all aspects, from teaching quality to recruitment of academic staff. Individuals without any CV and working experience and academic background join the university academic staff. This is deplorable. Another problem I want to raise is the issue of academic degrees as doctoral degrees are easily granted.
For over 15 years I have been calling on the Polytechnic University authorities to properly equip teaching laboratories. How research and educational purposes would be fulfilled and how am I going to teach my students without scientific laboratory equipment? It can no longer be like that.
Another problem I want to raise concerns the Higher Education Law. In its entirety, the law is a good one, yet certain law sections and articles are deplorable. As the Americans say “too many cooks spoil the broth.” At least seven administrative boards have been set up under the new Higher Education Law. When I was told that the government allocates 80 million euros for the Higher Education, the I wondered ‘where does all this money end up?” This funding never ends up to the professors, but it disappears and is distributed to various board personnel. Should all these projects you have provided funding were to be audited, you would find out that not a single project has been implemented. Combating corruption cannot be done through statements, but mechanisms are needed. It is not the professors the ones to engage in corruption actions, but top officials who name their affiliates and relatives to university boards. Meanwhile, every university professor around the world benefits a specific support in funding for workshops and professional training. I am saying all of these because I feel this is my obligation as an intellectual.
Relocating the faculty, to me would be the most insane thing that can ever be done in all respects. Considering the huge investment planned to be developed here, I think a huge building can be constructed to house everyone who wishes to move here.
And the last, the professor salaries are miserable. It would be wise to cut the academic staff to reduce spending.
PM Rama: It seems everything you said are true as everyone applauded. It is the law’s shortcoming as it stipulates that the budget is drafted by the department, then by relevant faculty and then by the university and it is finally adopted by the senate. Likewise, the law contains a series of elements that grant considerable autonomy to the university. I personally don’t think that stripping the university’s autonomy is the right solution. On the other hand, the eight famous demands include a demand calling for budget transparency. Dialogue is also needed to find a common solution in order to ensure transparency. The government has allocated 80 million euros but the funding is not sufficient. The funding should be higher.
A problem is that we should know how this funding has been spent. The Republic of Albania spends a total of 200 million euros for its entire security system, including police force, army, radars and border security, whereas the universities in Tirana, Durres and Elbasan spend over six million euros for security guards. What secret researches are conducted in your labs that should be strictly and rigorously guarded?! What secret scientific researches on artificial intelligence are carried out un Durres University so that we can find out about it and sell the brand and generate huge money so that we completely remove the university fees? An industry of security guards has been thriving in Albania. The law stipulates that the non-academic personnel should be less than 33 percent of the entire university staff.
These are issues that need to be discussed.
In my view, it is too premature to question the law. It is a transforming law and it may contain elements that need to be reviewed, but it is too early to question it. The university has a large share in terms of the law implementation.
The next demand is that students want a 50 percent representation right, but this right is not granted in no country around the world. Cause it is a reason behind it. The elections take place within the academic staff and election process doesn’t take place 3+2 years and it goes over the entire pedagogical process. It is not about calling students to vote. However, this also needs to be discussed and find a way to ensure that students have a greater say in this process in order to influence the decision-making process, but not through their direct vote. Is this demand considered fulfilled?
Students enjoy formal representation in the university senates. Do they work?! As far as I do understand, they do not work. I think, the student councils must be re-established. I think it is reasonable for the students’ representatives to become members of the university board members. The administrative board is to oversight and audit entire funding. So, the senate acts like a parliament, whereas the board acts like a government. I think we have been wrong regarding the individuals who have been named to the university administrative board. As soon as this whole story ends and several conclusions are drawn, we will start acting. We will sack all university administrative board members who represent the government and will appoint public figures to replace them. We should enhance the boards’ quality. The university has its share, the government has its own share and of course we can provide students the opportunity to have their representatives. Certain students are often used by university officials and the balance is based on contributions. The government provides the largest contribution.
Do you know that the Serbian university considers the EU funding a very important part of it? We rank last in the region for EU funding for education. The European Union has set a fund paid out to member states and the Balkan states. The EU also allocates funding to support scientific research and we receive funding according to the projects based on their reliability. But no focus and projecting capacities have been mobilized in this respect. All of these need to be addressed.
One might ask, why you didn’t know these. This is a democracy virtue and, being temporary, the government doesn’t know everything and therefore people should speak up in order to push the process forward. And every process can move forward easily when there is interaction and no procrastination. It would have been really a problem should the government was not willing, or in the case of violent protests, but this is not the case. I think there is a whole set of ways to speak up about everything. Everything you said have been noted down and we will definitely address each of them.
Professor: But the problem lies with the students as they are protesting for 14 days now and this is definitely painful to us all because they are our kids. How shall we convince them without tricks and lies to stop protesting. What you said have to do with technicalities that both students and we still don’t understand. Therefore, I think you should discuss such issues with your government experts and then tell students what the government thinks. Dialogue is something that is seemingly turned down by students and puts us in an awkward position. They don’t reject dialogue, but they want to be told what solution has been found following consultations with the specialists group and if they are not satisfied then another solution should be sought. I mean that a series of alternative solutions should be found. I think this is the right way.
PM Rama: I don’t think it would work like that, because a large crowd features every kind of souls and minds and not everyone would agree. I want to be clear. If it is all about whether the government would accept or not these demands. When you say these demands should be met, what do you mean by it?! Regarding the demand on the tuition fee cut, a clear and final decision will be made, whatever it be, but it takes time to include it in the Ministry of Education’s budget and include then the subsidies. The government is saying “yes, I accept all these demands, but now let’s sit and determine how and when.” I know no other case when protesters turn down dialogue. The only case was the protest to stop chemical weapons and there was nothing to negotiate.
Or the Council of Ministers’ decision on the charge for repeated exams. Why I promptly revoked it? Because there was nothing to negotiate. If you are convinced then you revoke a decision, but when not then such a decision won’t be revoked. But when people call on you “increase budget, cut fees in half, do this and do that,” how all these can be done?
Professor: Let’s all work together to keep this student spirit alive.
PM Edi Rama: I fully agree. It is not that I don’t agree and I am here to convince them to change their mind. I fully agree that things should be done. The thing is how these things will be done and it is the government that will have the last say after listening to the concerns. I can say that these hearings are not a show. It is crucially important that talks and debates are held in this process. Many problems have surfaced. But how we will solve them?! Let’s consider the tuition fees, for example. I don’t agree that fees will be cut in half for everyone. If I make a decision without holding discussions first, then someone else wouldn’t agree with that.
Professor: I would like to express a concern. The eight demands put forward by students are right, and even they could have been 18, or even 28 demands and I think they have highlighted the essence of the problem, that is the law 80/2015 itself. It was clear from the outset when the law was drafted without taking into consideration the opinion of the university and student interest groups and we all feared that the bomb would explode one day.
PM Edi Rama: Tell me one article of the law that is related to the eight demands.
Professor: The students’ vote coefficient and the university administrative boards.
PM Edi Rama: Taking note of everything we have already analysed, we have found not a single case when the students’ representation coefficient stood at 50 %. Not a single one. However, there could be. Here we are and that’s why dialogue is needed. If there is a country with such a representation coefficient, then we will become the second.
Professor: You Prime Minister made an analogy to describe what the university senate and the university administrative board represent. I would like to correct you about the university budget. The roles you described are inverse, because the Higher Education Law provides that the academic senate makes a preliminary evaluation of the budget and the university administrative board approves it. We are university professors and we don’t draft the budget. I am an engineer and I am not going to ask for the paper or print prices.
PM Edi Rama: The budget is not about the paper price. Except for the conflict between the rector and a group of deans, who have obviously blocked each other, in no case the Administrative Board has rejected, or changed the senate’s decision. The fee that was removed had been asked by these universities and it was imposed arbitrary. The universities are not to blame too.
