ASSESSMENT OF CAREER EXPECTATION ON THE CONFIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF SECRETARY IN A PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENT

Background of the study: Secretaries may work in a variety of settings, including government agencies, businesses, nonprofit groups, and industries. Of all these, the sector may stand to benefit the most from hiring the greatest secretaries and suffer the most from doing so. Governmental institutions have seen major modifications recently. The increasing international competition that has resulted in things like better freight facilities is one facet of this transformation. The widespread use of computer systems, which has led to a decrease in ordinary paper work, has been another important element in public institutions. The accountability and efficiency of higher education governance systems have received a great deal of attention ever since the advent of contemporary approaches to corporate governance1 in the early 1990s. Large-scale governance scandals like those at Barings Bank, Enron, and the retail company Royal Ahold (Mallin, 2018), as well as comparable issues in the sector of higher education (discussed in Shattock, 2006), have had a "ripple effect" that has resulted in a wealth of advice and, more recently, a code of governance practice. The CUC advice as well as related work by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales discuss the obligations and responsibilities of the secretary of the governing body2 (HEFCW, 2017).

In both, it is acknowledged that the secretary plays a crucial role in how the governing body functions and behaves. The secretary manages the numerous processes and procedures that result in the efficient administration of governing body business and organizes the operations of the governing body. These include, among other things, choosing new governors, orienting them, planning meetings of the governing body and relevant committees, producing minutes and making plans for follow-up action, as well as communication and liaison between the governing body and the rest of the institution. But the job has a lot more to it than that. The secretary may be in charge of giving legal and procedural advice, contributing information that the governing body needs, serving as counsel to the chair, head of the institution3, and others on matters that the institution and the governing body are addressing, and, occasionally, acting as an independent voice that can prevent the governing body from making mistakes. The position often must strike a balance between the administrative need and the institutions' obligation to act transparently and responsibly (Wotjas, 2017). The secretary is now "At the center of the governance process in a manner that would not have been feasible previous to the events in the mid 1990s," according to Shattock (op cit, p.25). Van der Wende (2016) examined how higher education institutions were being pressured to deal with new accountability measures in exchange for public funding, uphold high standards of governance to protect the values and integrity of universities in light of increased political intervention, and deal with the forces behind corporate and related public sector governance developments. These hearings made it abundantly evident that in the UK and other higher education institutions, governance is a "living" problem.

Van der Wende said, however, that in order to enhance the efficacy of higher education governance, it would be necessary to comprehend governing bodies' behavior, the distribution of power between governors and management, and difficulties related to trust in governance4 interactions. However, despite the fact that the most recent major revision of the Combined Code on Corporate Governance (Higgs, 2020) at least sparked a discussion on working relationships within and around company boards (McNulty, Roberts, and Stiles, 2021), the UK higher education sector has not really looked into this issue in any depth. In particular, the effect and function of the secretary have received little attention. The contribution of the secretary to the work of the governing body, the possibility that the secretary will have to address conflicts of interest in carrying out the role, and their influence in managing the relationship between the board and the executive were all noted in the last major empirical review of UK higher education governance to consider the way governing bodies operate, conducted more than ten years ago (Bargh, Scott, and Smith, 2022), but not taken any further. It was clear that the changes in the sector's approach to governance, noticed by van der Wende, had been substantial as a chartered secretary working in the area of higher education governance from the mid-1980s. More recently, the argument has been made that the secretary's position has changed from a passive stewardship model of a manager of the higher education institution's "governance business" to a more proactive attitude of a manager of governance activities. The CUC Guide now devotes more space to describing the role of the secretary than to that of the head of institution, according to Shattock (ibid, p.23), and lists the secretary as "the second key figure in governance arrangements" (ibid, p.21), behind the head of institution and slightly in front of the chair. The greater codification of other aspects of governance, like the increased emphasis placed on monitoring governing body effectiveness or the evaluation and monitoring of institutional performance, led to the growth of the secretary's responsibilities, which, in turn, led to the increased awareness of the role (CUC, 2016). To get a complete view of the secretary's contribution to institutional governance, role awareness must be considered alongside the influence the secretary exercised in the conduct of governance business.

Furthermore, it seemed that powerful secretaries had been in existence for a very long time prior to the development of contemporary government structures. This was not a brand-new phenomena; rather, it had gone unnoticed since studies on higher education governance focused primarily on the chair and head of institution. In my experience, the secretary has typically been a "backstage" but active participant in higher education governance. She has been able to contribute from behind the scenes and occasionally in governing body meetings, without formally being a member of the governing body, and she has used formal and informal mechanisms to exert influence in close working relationships with the head of institution and the chair. A few of the contributions made by significant figures and the governing body itself in decision-making and the formulation of institutional strategy have already been recognized in the study of Bargh et al. (2019). However, their investigation highlighted the challenges faced by university workers in comprehending the role of top managers in decision-making processes (p.118), as well as the challenges faced by certain governors in determining the extent to which the executive was leading them (p.127). 'Directorate reports to governors were organized with strong recommendations, as opposed to the presenting of a choice between numerous possibilities and their subsequent repercussions,' it was said in one case (p.128). Bargh et al. came to the conclusion that in the institutions they had studied, the executive's control over agendas and the initiation of strategies remained "substantially intact" (p. 135) and the impact of governors on decision-making could be limited, unless enacted by way of cultivating close interpersonal relationships with the executive and aiding in the influencing of their policy 13 proposals. Given the secretary's crucial role in setting the agenda, overseeing the work of the governing body, and frequently serving as a member of the institution's executive, it seemed important to attempt to shed light on this position in order to determine whether or not emerging claims about its significance could be supported. But the study revealed a word of warning. In a post-interview conversation with a governing body secretary, it was advised that I not overestimate the secretary's impact since a more "controlled" and "corporate" approach to contemporary university governance would be seen negatively by the larger HE community. The competition between commercial organizations has intensified as a result of the interaction of these factors. Each company wants to succeed at the cost of its difficulties, which must be funded by a fever and hiring better people. For each position that is listed, a rigorous screening procedure is feasible since there are several qualified candidates.

Like a chameleon, a secretary must change to fit her environment. To do this, she must learn new skills like using word processors and computers. The business letter no longer takes up as much of her time as it once did since telex and electronic mail have become commonplace for her. Today's secretary finds that she spends less time at the keyboard and more time attention to other elements of her job. This Osun State Polytechnic, Iree history dates back to 1981, when the institution was one of the polytechnic, Ibadan's four satellite campuses. After Osun State was established in August 1991, it was essential for the new state to have its own polytechnic. In order to meet the inhabitants' educational demands, the government decided to create Osun State Polytechnic, Iree in the state.

On October 12, 1992, Alhaji Isiaka Adetunji Adeleke, the first Executive Governor of Osun State, signed the legislation creating Osun State Polytechnic, Iree. By virtue of such government action, the Osun State Polytechnic at Iree replaced the Iree satellite campus of the Polytechnic in Ibadan. Similar to how the Esa-Oke satellite campus was replaced, Osun State College of Technology Esa-Oke was founded.

The institutions served a purpose for the state. The goal was to align the courses offered by the two sister colleges with a focus on business. Iree was designated for science and technology, whilst Esa-Oke was designated for engineering and environmental studies.

However, the vision is being revised in that direction in light of the NBTE's recommendation that Polytechnic offer core engineering courses. As a result, plans are in the works to introduce engineering and environmental studies at Iree, specifically: the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Engineering.

The school features a large library building that caters to the academic needs of both staff and students. It keeps a substantial collection of books for its use and the benefit of readers. Plans are in motion to expand the library's book collection and services, notably in the areas of photocopying, photography, and audiovisual support.

The school also features a health center where employees and students may get medical attention. Serious patients, however, are sent to the hospitals in Iree, Ikirun, and Osogbo. The works and services department, which is close to the building's infrastructure and technology, offers workers and students municipal services including water and electricity.

With this modest start, management will recognize the efforts and sacrifices made by every member of staff, every student, and the general public for the orderly and forward-moving growth of this new institution.

It is our desire that we would all be working together for collaboration and understanding to construct Osun State Polytechnic, Iree into an enviable structure despite the environment's many hurdles for everyone involved.