立場新聞 Stand News

「院校自主公投」十問十答:教職員版(下)

2016/3/11 — 17:11

(文:院校自主公投運動)

(教職員版十問十答上篇見此

5. 特首委任校董會成員有什麼問題?

廣告

‧ 過去港督擔任各大學校監,有權委任校董會成員的安排,是殖民政府監控大學的手段,威脅院校自主。現屆政府上任以來,對各院校的橫加干預越見明顯,正好顯示此制度的問題所在

‧ 目前各院校的校董會均有相當數量的成員由行政長官直接委任,部分更高達八成。行政長官考量委任人選,是出於學術抑或政治考慮,現時沒有任何制衡機制,完全不受師生及公眾監察。因而可能成為政治工具,用以打壓和清算教職員,學術自由及院校自主完全不受保障

廣告

‧ 現屆特首上任以來委任的近80名校董,近半是現任或曾任人大或政協委員,不少更是他的競選團隊成員,有拿校董作政治酬庸之嫌;港大副校長任命事件、李國章出任港大校委會主席、嶺大校董的委任等,在在都顯示特首對校政的干預無人可阻止。因此,有需要在制度層面制約特首的委任權力,確保院校自主和學術自由

6. 校監不能委任校董,那校外校董成員如何產生?社會如何監察大學運作?

‧ 透過大學教育資助委員會,政府對大學公帑的運用有嚴密的監控

‧ 校外委員的產生辦法很多,如歐洲的大學校委會成員由選舉產生(由校委會推薦選出,或由更廣泛的大學教職員群體投票選出)

7. 為何要增加校董會內的大學生員民選代表?

學生和教職員均是大學的核心成員,應擁有共同參與校園管治的權力和責任。然而現時各院校校董會的組成比例懸殊,員生代表嚴重不足,中大至今未有民選學生及教職員代表,其他院校直接由特首委任的校外校董由三至六成不等,更有高達八成者。這些人不一定熟悉大學教育,也不了解員生的意見與需要。因此我們要求校董會提高教職員和學生民選代表的比例,讓校董會不再由校外人士把持,達致真正的「員生共治」。

8. 我不過是小職員,校董會與院校自主與我何干?

校董會是大學的最高權力機關,決定校內一切事務,包括人事任命、財政、校園建設( 如新教學樓、宿舍等)、僱員政策、開辦新課程等,這些決策在在都影響雇員的工作環境和福利待遇,因此和所有職員都息息相關。

9. 公投議題:

(一)取消特首任命校董會/校委會成員的權力

(二)增加校董會/校委會中民選教員、職員、研究生、本科生代表的比例

10. 公投詳情

      公投日期:2016年3月21至23日

      進行方式:

  (1) 電子投票:參與院校屬下所有全職教職員可透過預先登記方式於上述三日進行電子投票(登記至2016年3月18日(星期五)中午12時止);或

  (2) 到站投票:於投票日到參與院校設置的實體票站出示職員證投票

 
「院校自主公投運動」記者會

【院校自主公投運動|記者招待會】是次公投的意義,在於讓大學教職員可以透過直接民主的方式,就校董會/校委會的組成,以及特首的角色表達意見,在院校內確立共識。各院校會按公投結果,推動下一輪的院校自主運動,包括促請大學管理當局以及立法會啟動修改大學條例的各種工作。****************************************************公投日期:2016年3月21至23日參與院校:港大、中大、理大、城大、浸大、教院、科大及嶺大公投議題 (Motions):(1) 取消特首任命校董會/校委會成員的權力; To abolish the powers of the Chief Executive in appointing members to the Council;(2) 增加校董會/校委會中民選教員、職員、研究生、本科生代表的比例。 To increase the ratio of elected members of academic/teaching and administrative/supporting staff, postgraduate and undergraduate students in the Council.

Posted by 院校自主公投運動 on Monday, February 29, 2016

 

5. What is the problem of having the Chief Executive appoint members of the council?

‧ As the Chancellor of the universities, the former governors had the power to appoint members of the Court as a monitoring mechanism of university education for the colonial government. This constituted a latent threat to institutional autonomy. Under the present government, arbitrary interference has become ever more blatant, exposing the flaws of the system.

‧ Many current members in courts or councils of the universities are directly appointed by the Chief Executive, constituting up to 80% in some institutions. Whether the Chief Executive appoints these members on academic or political criteria is outside the purview of students, teachers and the public. There is no mechanism for check and balance. Such system may be used as a political tool to oppress and threaten teaching staff. Academic freedom and university autonomy are left completely unprotected.

‧ The current Chief Executive has appointed more than 80 members to the councils and courts of the universities. More than half of them are current or previous members of the NPC or CPPCC, quite a few are from his election campaign team. It raises the suspicion that membership of university courts and councils are political rewards. Incidences such as the appointment of HKU Pro-Vice-Chancellor,  of Arthur Li as HKU Council Chairman, and of the appointment of Council members of Lingnan University all show there is no way  to stop the Chief Executive’s interference in university affairs. Therefore, we need to restrain the Chief Executive’s power at the systemic level in order to protect academic freedom and university autonomy.

6. If the Chancellor cannot appoint council members, then how to recruit members outside the university? How can the public monitor university operations?

‧ The government has strict oversight on universities’ use of public funds via the University Grants Committee.
‧ There are many ways to recruit council members from outside the university. For example, some European university councils are formed through elections. (Nominated and elected by university councils or by the larger body of university teaching staff.)

7. Why should we increase the number of elected staff and student representatives in the court/council?

Students and teaching staff are core members of the university with the right and responsibility to participate in university governance. Yet the composition of courts and councils of universities are highly imbalanced - students and staff are under-represented. Between 30 and 60% of court members are appointed by the Chief Executive in most universities (with some reaching up to 80%). CUHK does not have any elected staff or student representatives. These members are not necessarily familiar with university education or understand the views and needs of staff and students. Therefore we request that the Council increase the ratio of student and teaching staff representatives in order to prevent the domination of university councils by lay members. The aim is to achieve true co-governance of the university by staff and students.

8. I am only junior-level staff. Why should the Council and University Autonomy concern me?

The Council is the highest ruling body of the university, deciding on all affairs such as appointments, finance, campus facilities (such as new academic buildings and dormitories), employment policy and the granting of new programmes. All these decisions affect working conditions and benefits, and are thus closely related to every single university staff member.

9. The motions in the referendum:

(1) To abolish the powers of the Chief Executive in appointing members to the Council
(2) To increase the ratio of elected members of academic/teaching and administrative/supporting staff, postgraduate and undergraduate students in the Council

10. Basic Information of “Referendum on Institutional Autonomy”

Date of voting: 21 – 23 March 2016

Voting procedure:

Off-site voting: All full-time staff of the 8 local institutions pre-register online and cast vote during the off-site voting period (register through https://jointu.popvote.hk from 23 February 2016, 12:00nn to 18 March 2016, 12:00nn);

or

On-site voting: Present staff card at the physical voting stations (if any) of your own university and cast vote
 (Details please refer to the announcements of respective staff associations or representatives.)

 

參考資料:

香港專上學生聯會:〈大專修例十問十答〉,2016。

香港教育人員專業協會:〈修訂大學條例 保障院校自主〉新聞稿,2015。

練乙錚:〈兩岸三地的大學自主和學術自由〉,公民實踐論壇──《大學之道:自由自主》,2016年1月23日。

陳文敏:〈從「一國兩制」看學術自由〉,公民實踐論壇──《大學之道:自由自主》,2016年1月23日。

Karran, Terence. 2007. ‘Academic Freedom in Europe: A Preliminary Comparative Analysis’. Higher Education Policy, 2007, 20, (289–313). International Association of Universities.

 

院校自主公投運動 facebook 專頁

發表意見