Under section 36 (2) of Act No. 111/1998 Sb., to regulate higher education institutions and to change and amend other laws (“the Higher Education Act”), the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports registered this Code of Procedure for the Internal Evaluation Board of Charles University under Ref. No. MSMT-38196/2016 on December 14, 2016.
Mgr. Karolína Gondková
Director of Higher Education Department
Under sections 9 (1) (b) (3) and 17 (1) (k) of Act No. 111/1998 Sb., to regulate higher education institutions and to change and amend other laws(the Higher Education Act), as amended, and under Article 9 (7) of the Constitution of Charles University, the Academic Senate of Charles University has adopted the following Code of Procedure for the Internal Evaluation Board of Charles University as an internal regulation of the University:
The Internal Evaluation Board (“the Board”) is a self-governing academic body2 of Charles University (“the University”), whose activities support and develop quality assurance and internal evaluation of the educational and scientific, research, development, innovative, artistic, or other creative activities (“creative activities”), and related activities of the University.
The powers of the Board are stipulated by the Higher Education Act, the Constitution of the University (“the Constitution”) and its internal regulations – in particular the Rules for the System of Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance of the University (“Internal Evaluation and Assurance of Quality Rules”), the Accreditation Code of the University (“the Accreditation Code”), and this Code of Procedure for the Internal Evaluation Board of the University (“the Code”).
Within the powers stipulated in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Board:
verifies whether the educational activities in the individual programmes of study meet the quality requirements of the University, and evaluates the educational activities;
discusses the draft internal evaluation report of the University and its appendices before they are referred to the Research Board and the Academic Senate of the University;
approves the principles for carrying out the audit of compliance with the relevant legal regulations and with the internal regulations of the University in the implementation of programmes of study stipulated in Article 9 (4) (e) of the Constitution;
within the audit stipulated in Article 9 (4) (e) of the Constitution, discusses serious changes to the implementation of a programme of study in comparison to the approved application for accreditation3;
checks the fulfilment of corrective measures in the case of identified defects in the implementation of a programme of study under Article 9 (4) (b), points (1) and (2) of the Constitution and approves the cancellation of adopted measures;
expresses its opinion on draft Rector’s directives, if so stipulated by the Internal Evaluation and Assurance of Quality Rules, the Accreditation Code, and the Rules for the Evaluation of Educational Activities by Students and Graduates;
submits to the University bodies proposals for the development of the system of internal evaluation and quality assurance for their opinion;
approves the application of the Rules for the System of Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance into area-specific rules for the evaluation of the quality of educational and creative activities in individual areas of study and subject areas;
approves the guidance documents related to internal evaluation and quality assurance submitted by its chair; and
gives its opinion on motions submitted to the Board by the Rector or on motions the Board considers of its own resolution.
In exercising its powers the Board cooperates with other bodies of the University, the Rector’s permanent advisory bodies, and the bodies of the faculties and of the other units of the University.
For the purposes of exercising its powers the Board is arranged into panels under Article 3, may form working groups under Article 4, or may use consultants under Article 5.
The activities of the Board are managed by its chair.
The deputy chair acts as a deputy of the chair in the scope determined by the chair.
The nomination and appointment of Board members is focused on ensuring high standards of evaluation in the areas of study and subject areas represented at the University.
Only a recognized expert or a student who has achieved good academic results at the University may be appointed a member of the Board.
Board members perform their offices personally and are independent in performing their offices.
A Board member does not participate in the decision-making of the Board concerning matters namely related to the faculty or other unit where he is employed, where he holds an office, or in the case in which there may be a conflict of interest.
If the Board membership of an appointed member terminates under Article 9 (3) of the Constitution before the end of his term of office, a new member of the Board is appointed only for the rest of the relevant term of office. The new member is nominated by the body that nominated the member whose membership terminated.
The board is organised into four panels including the panels for natural sciences, medicine, social sciences, and humanities areas of study and subject areas.
The distribution of areas of study4 among individual panels is determined by the appendix to this Code. The subject areas covered by the panels within the framework of internal evaluation and quality assurance reflect the assigned areas of study.
The Rector, President of the Academic Senate, and deputy chair of the Board are not assigned to any panel, other Board members are assigned each to one panel. The panel to which a Board member is assigned is determined by the Rector when the member is appointed.
The Board members may choose to participate in the meeting of any panel, however, without the possibility to make decisions.
evaluate matters related to areas of study that are assigned to them in accordance with the appendix to this Code and to the respective subject areas, and maintain records of such matters;
prepare draft resolutions of the Board on the matters being evaluated including the reasoning; and
propose applications of the Rules for the System of Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance into area-specific rules for the evaluation of the quality of educational and creative activities in the areas of study and the respective subject areas assigned to them.
The meeting of the panel is chaired by the panel chair who is responsible for its activities, submits to the Board a report on the results of the panel’s activities, and submits draft resolutions to the Board. If he cannot participate in the Board meeting this power is exercised by a Board member designated by him who is assigned to the same panel. If the panel chair is not appointed his role is performed by the oldest member of the panel.
The panel chair is appointed and removed by the Board upon nomination of the panel.
For the purpose of the evaluation of matters within the powers of the Board, a working group may be formed of Board members and/or consultants.
The working group is always formed when:
the matter evaluated falls within the powers of several panels; the membership of such working group usually includes an equal number of Board members from all relevant panels;
the matter evaluated is the evaluation of a programme of study5.
The working group is formed and its members are appointed by the Board or the panel, one of the members is designated by the Board or the panel to manage the working group and to submit a report on its activities.
The appointment of a member of working group is conditioned by the nominated member’s consent to his appointment.
Only such Board member who is not employed by and does not hold an office at the faculty or other unit to which the matter being evaluated is related may be designated to manage the working group and to submit the report on its activities.
The output of the working group’s activities consists of a written opinion on the matter being evaluated.
For the purpose of the evaluation of matters within the powers of the Board, the Rector appoints and removes consultants on the advice of the Board. The Rector removes the consultant also upon the request of the consultant.
Only an employee of the University, other higher education institution, or research institution (including foreign institutions); a practitioner, who is a recognized expert; or a student who has achieved good academic results at the University may be appointed as a consultant.
The nomination of a candidate for the appointment of consultant together with his consent and identification of areas of study and subject areas for the evaluation of which he is qualified, or a reasoned motion to remove the consultant, may be submitted to the Board by the bodies of the University, of faculties, and of other units and by the Board members.
The consultant may be designated to prepare an opinion on the condition that the matter being evaluated does not relate to the faculty or other unit of the University that employs him or where he holds an office, or on the condition that he is not in other conflict of interest in relation to the matter being evaluated.
A student who is appointed a consultant ceases to be a consultant at the point when he ceases to be a student.
The consultant treats all information related to the matters being evaluated that he is involved in as confidential.
A list of consultants including the areas of study they are qualified to evaluate is published in the publicly accessible section of the University website.
performs tasks related to ensuring the organisational and material needs for the activities of the Board;
participates in the meetings of the Board and takes minutes; in his absence the minutes are taken by a person designated by the member chairing the meeting;
keeps records on a continuous basis of the internal evaluation of the quality of educational, creative, and related activities and of the activities of the Board;
keeps records of the minutes of meetings of the Board, panels, and working groups; and
maintains the list of consultants.
The secretary is appointed by the Rector after the nomination is discussed by the Board.
The secretary is employed by the University as a Rector’s Office staff member.
Board meetings are held usually ten times during the academic year.
The schedule of the Board meetings for the academic year is determined by the chair of the Board; the schedule is published in the publicly accessible section of the University website.
In urgent cases the chair may determine a date of the meeting that was not scheduled in the published schedule. Such meeting date is published in the publicly accessible section of the University website at least ten days before the meeting is to be held together with the reasons for calling the meeting.
The Board members receive an invitation to every meeting including the agenda.
The meeting agenda is proposed by the chair of the Board.
The board meetings are not open to the public. Persons participating in the Board meeting must treat it as confidential.
The person submitting an agenda item is always invited to be present in the discussion. If it is required by the character of the matter discussed, the chair of the Board invites the representatives of the faculties or other units of the University, consultants6 or other persons to participate in the discussion of the agenda item.
The Board meeting is chaired by the chair, and if he is not present it is chaired by the deputy chair or a member designated by the chair.
After the commencement of the meeting the chair enables the Board members to submit motions to amend or alter the meeting agenda.
The Board adopts the proposed agenda by a resolution.
Individual items on the agenda are discussed on the basis of documentary materials. The documentary materials for scheduled meetings are sent to the Board members at least ten calendar days in advance, and in the case of an extraordinary Board meeting sufficiently in advance enabling proper discussion of the materials.
If in the course of meeting the Board resolves that the documentary materials are insufficient or were not sent sufficiently in advance, the Board refrains from discussing the given item of the agenda. In such a case the documentary materials are returned to the person who submitted them and a reasonable time limit is given to finalise the documentary materials.
A debate is held for every item on the agenda.
Minutes are taken of the Board meeting. The minutes state the date of meeting, which Board members were present, who was excused or who was absent, who was invited to participate, who chaired the meeting, what was the agenda of the meeting, what resolutions were adopted and what were the numerical results of the voting.
The correctness of the minutes is verified by the person chairing the meeting. The minutes are approved by the Board at its next meeting.
The Board resolutions and meeting minutes are published in the publicly accessible section of the University website.
The minutes, documentary materials, and other written materials related to the Board activities are archived. Archiving of the materials is governed by special regulations.
The Board adopts resolutions on the results of its meetings.
The Board is quorate if a simple majority of all members are present, with the exception of cases stated in section 12a (4) (a) of the Higher Education Act and in Article 9 (4) (a) and (b) of the Constitution, which require the presence of two thirds of all Board members.
The Board decides on a proposed resolution by voting. Voting is public unless the Board resolves that the voting is by secret ballot.
There is a separate vote on each proposed resolution.
After the end of voting or after the results of voting are announced the person chairing the meeting announces the result by stating the number of votes in favour of the proposal, against the proposal, those who abstained, and those who did not participate in the voting in accordance with Article 2 (6).
In order for the resolution to be adopted it is necessary to obtain:
the consent of the majority of all Board members in matters listed in section 12a (4) (a) of the Higher Education Act and in Article 9 (4) (a) or (b) of the Constitution, or in the case of decision on a proposal to cancel corrective measures under Article 9 (4) (b) point 1 and 2 of the Constitution;
the consent of the majority of Board members present in other cases.
The Board chair may announce a vote without convening a meeting of the Board (“written vote”) in case of an urgent matter or a proposal for the discussion of which it is not possible or efficient to convene a meeting. A written vote is not possible in the case of matters listed in section 12a (4) (a) of the Higher Education Act, in Article 9 (4) (a) to (c) and Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, on matters listed in Article 1 (3) (b) to (h) of this Code and on matters within the powers of the Board that are listed in the Accreditation Code.
The announcement of the vote, wording of the proposal, and a voting paper is sent to the Board members. The manner and time limit for the vote is determined by the Board chair.
The Board member sends to the secretary a completed ballot containing the name and surname of the person voting and his vote, i.e., in favour of the proposal, against it, or abstained, within the time limit under paragraph 2, otherwise his vote is not valid.
The resolution is passed if a simple majority of all Board members with the exception of members excluded from decision-making under Article 2 (6) expressed their consent with the resolution.
The minutes of the written vote are approved at the next Board meeting.
The rules and procedures for discussing the proposed applications for the accreditation of a programme of study or for institutional accreditation of an area of study and internal approval of programmes of study are governed by the Accreditation Code.
The Board discusses serious changes to a programme of study in the course of its implementation in accordance with Articles 18 and 27 of the Accreditation Code.
It is a pre-condition for discussing a draft evaluation report on the programme of study under the Internal Evaluation and Assurance of Quality Rules to have the opinion of the guarantor of the programme of study7 and of the deans of faculties implementing the evaluated programme of study on the draft.
If the Board identifies defects in the implementation of the programme of study, then:
in the case of a programme of study that received authorisation within the framework of institutional accreditation, the Board adopts one of the measures listed in Article 9 (4) (b) of the Constitution;
in the case of a programme of study that received accreditation from the National Accreditation Office for the Higher Education [Národní akreditační úřad pro vysoké školství] or from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, the chair of the Board refers recommendations to correct the defects together with the relevant resolution of the Board to the dean of the faculty, and in the case of serious defects that would otherwise qualify measures under Article 9 (4) (b) point 2 or 3 of the Constitution, the recommendations and the resolution is also referred to the Rector; the dean has a duty to send his opinion to the Board chair within the time limit stated in the resolution; the Board discusses the Dean’s opinion at the closest meeting and adopts a resolution on the next steps.
It is a pre-condition for discussing an own evaluation report on creative activities8 to have the opinion of the research board of the faculty or higher education institute on this draft.
The procedures in case of the audit regulated by Article 9 (4) (e) of the Constitution (“audit“) stipulate the principles of audit9 of programmes of study approved by the Board.
The audit is carried out:
after adopting a measure under Article 9 (4) (b) item 1 and 2 of the Constitution;
if the Board resolves to carry out an audit on the basis of a motion by the Rector, Board member, or on the basis of an external written motion.
The deans of the relevant faculties and directors of the relevant higher education institutes provide the required cooperation.
The rules applicable to the activities of the Board apply with the necessary modifications to the activities of panels and working groups.
This internal regulation was approved by the Academic Senate of the University on December 9, 2016.
This internal regulation comes into force on the date of registration by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.10
This internal regulation becomes effective on the first day of the calendar month following the date of coming into force.
PhDr. Tomáš Nigrin, Ph.D.
President of the Academic Senate
Prof. MUDr. Tomáš Zima, DrSc.
APPENDIX: DISTRIBUTION OF AREAS OF STUDY AMONG PANELS OF THE BOARD
3. Biology, ecology, and the environment,
33. Earth sciences,
35. General medicine and stomatology,
36. Medical fields of study.
5. Economic fields of study,
18. Media and communication studies,
19. Pedagogy for non-teachers,
20. Political science,
24. Social work,
28. Physical education and sport; kinanthropology,
10. Philosophy, religious studies, and theology,
12. History sciences,
32. Arts and cultural sciences.
Translator’s note: Words importing the masculine include the feminine, and unless the context otherwise requires, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.
S. 7 (1) (d) of the Higher Education Act.
Article 18 (2) and Article 27 (2) of the Accreditation Code.
Appendix No. 3 to the Higher Education Act.
Internal Evaluation and Assurance of Quality Rules.
Article 5 of this Code.
Article 22 (8) of the Constitution.
Internal Evaluation and Assurance of Quality Rules.
Article 1 (3) (c) of this Code.
S. 36 (4) of the Higher Education Act. The registration was completed on December 14, 2016.