Former UCR Rector Accuses Current Administration of Shifting Blame Regarding FEES
Gustavo Gutiérrez Espeleta calls on the University of Costa Rica administration to take responsibility as negotiations for the Special Fund for Higher Education heat up.
Gustavo Gutiérrez Espeleta, the former rector of the University of Costa Rica (UCR), has publicly criticized the current administration of the institution for what he describes as a tendency to 'blame the past' instead of taking accountability for current and future responsibilities.
In a statement published on his official Facebook page on March 11, Gutiérrez expressed his disappointment over having to defend his management amid recent allegations, as he had hoped to contribute to the university following his retirement.
His comments followed a meeting of the Extended Council of Rectors on March 6, which focused on the negotiations concerning the Special Fund for Higher Education (FEES) for the current year.
Gutiérrez stated, 'I thought that after my retirement I would take the role of an ex-rector, available to the University and its authorities when needed, contributing modestly with my experience.
What I never imagined was that I would have to defend myself against the current Administration, which has adopted a strategy of blaming the past and avoiding current and future responsibilities.'
He urged the current administration to acknowledge its mistakes and prepare for a quinquennial negotiation of the FEES, as mandated by Article 85 of the Political Constitution.
'Now it is the Administration's turn to take responsibility for the errors it is making with improvised resolutions and its obligations for the upcoming negotiation, which should be quinquennial as required by Article 85 of the Political Constitution.
This negotiation must strengthen not only the UCR but also the inter-university system in a politically adverse context.'
Gutiérrez further criticized the divisive approach towards the university community and the blaming of previous administrations or other public universities.
He cited a quotation that emphasizes the inclination to blame others as a common human trait.
Last year, negotiations fell short, resulting in the financing amount for the FEES being passed to the Legislative Assembly rather than being decided by the National Council of Rectors (Conare).
Some members of the Budget Committee indicated they would only approve an increase in FEES if the distribution methods among public universities were modified.
This proposal sought to allocate more resources to the Costa Rican Institute of Technology (TEC), the National University of Distance Education (UNED), and the National Technical University (UTN), thereby changing the historical distribution that primarily benefits the UCR.
Gutiérrez maintained that any adjustments to the FEES distribution should be preceded by a thorough analysis of the role of each university in the country’s public higher education system.
He noted that the negotiation concerning the potential redistribution was exceptionally challenging within Conare, with a commission failing to reach a consensus on a way forward, resulting in three different proposals being presented.
Regarding the 2026 FEES distribution, Gutiérrez stated that proposals from TEC, UNED, and UTN regarding criteria for a possible redistribution were presented but clarified that these were not formal decisions or obligations to alter the current distribution.
He added that his administration had communicated these proposals to the university community through an Extended Council of Rectors and later to the University Council after consultations with the Budget Committee.
Gutiérrez emphasized the complexities and challenges faced in the negotiations and reiterated that he never attributed the ongoing challenges to the failures of previous administrations during his negotiations from 2022 to 2024.
In a separate but relevant legislative development, a bill aimed at allowing the seizure of assets with no apparent legal origin advanced in Congress with a close vote of 24 in favor and 21 against.
This bill seeks to empower the Public Ministry to request the freezing of assets suspected of being derived from illegal activities, with the Administrative Contentious Court being responsible for resolution.
The recent vote amended a section deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Chamber, which found a singular defect regarding notification processes pertaining to asset seizure.
Despite opposition from several political parties concerned about returning the bill for further revisions, the measure proceeded with support from members of the National Liberation Party (PLN), the Broad Front (FA), and several independent legislators.
In a statement published on his official Facebook page on March 11, Gutiérrez expressed his disappointment over having to defend his management amid recent allegations, as he had hoped to contribute to the university following his retirement.
His comments followed a meeting of the Extended Council of Rectors on March 6, which focused on the negotiations concerning the Special Fund for Higher Education (FEES) for the current year.
Gutiérrez stated, 'I thought that after my retirement I would take the role of an ex-rector, available to the University and its authorities when needed, contributing modestly with my experience.
What I never imagined was that I would have to defend myself against the current Administration, which has adopted a strategy of blaming the past and avoiding current and future responsibilities.'
He urged the current administration to acknowledge its mistakes and prepare for a quinquennial negotiation of the FEES, as mandated by Article 85 of the Political Constitution.
'Now it is the Administration's turn to take responsibility for the errors it is making with improvised resolutions and its obligations for the upcoming negotiation, which should be quinquennial as required by Article 85 of the Political Constitution.
This negotiation must strengthen not only the UCR but also the inter-university system in a politically adverse context.'
Gutiérrez further criticized the divisive approach towards the university community and the blaming of previous administrations or other public universities.
He cited a quotation that emphasizes the inclination to blame others as a common human trait.
Last year, negotiations fell short, resulting in the financing amount for the FEES being passed to the Legislative Assembly rather than being decided by the National Council of Rectors (Conare).
Some members of the Budget Committee indicated they would only approve an increase in FEES if the distribution methods among public universities were modified.
This proposal sought to allocate more resources to the Costa Rican Institute of Technology (TEC), the National University of Distance Education (UNED), and the National Technical University (UTN), thereby changing the historical distribution that primarily benefits the UCR.
Gutiérrez maintained that any adjustments to the FEES distribution should be preceded by a thorough analysis of the role of each university in the country’s public higher education system.
He noted that the negotiation concerning the potential redistribution was exceptionally challenging within Conare, with a commission failing to reach a consensus on a way forward, resulting in three different proposals being presented.
Regarding the 2026 FEES distribution, Gutiérrez stated that proposals from TEC, UNED, and UTN regarding criteria for a possible redistribution were presented but clarified that these were not formal decisions or obligations to alter the current distribution.
He added that his administration had communicated these proposals to the university community through an Extended Council of Rectors and later to the University Council after consultations with the Budget Committee.
Gutiérrez emphasized the complexities and challenges faced in the negotiations and reiterated that he never attributed the ongoing challenges to the failures of previous administrations during his negotiations from 2022 to 2024.
In a separate but relevant legislative development, a bill aimed at allowing the seizure of assets with no apparent legal origin advanced in Congress with a close vote of 24 in favor and 21 against.
This bill seeks to empower the Public Ministry to request the freezing of assets suspected of being derived from illegal activities, with the Administrative Contentious Court being responsible for resolution.
The recent vote amended a section deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Chamber, which found a singular defect regarding notification processes pertaining to asset seizure.
Despite opposition from several political parties concerned about returning the bill for further revisions, the measure proceeded with support from members of the National Liberation Party (PLN), the Broad Front (FA), and several independent legislators.
