Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
Júlio Pedrosa
CICECO – University of Aveiro
Conference, Portuguese Higher Education: a view from outside
(perceptions, observations and chalenges), CNE, Lisboa 19-2-2013
1
Contexts and Framework
• University autonomy in Constitution (article 76,
1982 revision): Universities enjoy scientific,
pedagogic, administrative and financial autonomy,
in the terms of the law
• Governance model changed in 2007- Law of
Universities Autonomy: Law n.º 108/88, 24th
October, 1988
2
Contexts and Framework
• CNE plenary session, 13th February 2007, Ministry
of Higher Education Science and Technology, José
Mariano Gago, announces:
- Guidelines for the Higher Education Reforms in
Portugal: orientation and regulation; institutional
governance and legal statute; financement and
eficiency; access and equity; quality in higher
education science and technology; opening of
institutions to society and economy
3
Contexts and Framework
• This meeting with the Ministry stimulated CNE to
organize a series of seminars (22 February, 6 March, 28
March, 17 April, 2007): Higher Education Policies –
Four themes in debate (2008). CNE, Lisboa.
• Proposal for a new Law submited to CNE - Parecer n.º
6/2007
• New Law: Law nº 62/2007, 10th September 2007,
Regime Jurídico das Instituições de Ensino Superior
(RJIES)
4
Contexts and Framework
Government preparatory initiatives
• Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Portugal
(ENQA, November 2006)
• Reviews of National Policies for Education – Tertiary
Education in Portugal (OECD, December 2006)
• Institutional Evaluation Program - European
University Association (EUA) (2006 …)
5
Contexts and Framework
Other studies dealing with HE governance in Portugal
• Veiga Simão J., Machado dos Santos, S. e Almeida Costa
(2002). Ensino Superior: Uma visão para a próxima década.
Gradiva, Lisboa
• Veiga Simão, J. (2003). Modernização do Ensino Superior – da
Ruptura à Excelência. Fundação das Universidades
Portuguesas, Coimbra (três estudos a solicitação do CRUP)
• Veiga Simão J., Machado dos Santos, S. e Almeida Costa
(2005), Ambição para a Excelência – A oportunidade de
Bolonha. Gradiva, Lisboa (Estudo com apoio dos Ministros
6
Pedro Lynce de Faria e Maria da Graça Carvalho)
Contexts and Framework
• Veiga Simão, J. , Reinhardt, E. , Melo Ribeiro, C., Durst, F.,
Bernecker, W., Prokosch, H. U. Lerch, R., Alrcão. D., Félix
Ribeiro, J. M., Machado dos Santos, S., Almeida Costa, A.
and Jorge Carvalhal, J. (2005).
Ensino Superior – Opções Estratégicas, Reorganização
do Ensino Superior, Modelo da Universidade de Viseu.
Pedro Coelho Edições, Lisboa
7
Contexts and Framework
Gulbenkian Foundation Project
• The mission of the university (Maurice Kogan, UK, April 5, 2003)
• Governance in US higher education (Judith Eaton, USA, May 9,
2003)
• Institutional autonomy of the university (Josep Bricall, Spain, June
27, 2003
• Pedrosa, J. e Queiró J. F. (2005), Governar a Universidade
portuguesa: missão, organização, funcionamento e autonomia,
Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa.
8
Contexts and Framework
• CNE, National Debate on Education(2005-2007), joint iniciative of
Parlament and Government, organized by CNE, celebrating 20 years of
LBSE – Lei de Bases do Sistema Educativo
Azevedo, Joaquim; Dias Figueiredo, José; Paiva Campos, Bártolo; Dinis,
Conceição; Dias, Davide; Xavier Viegas, Domingos; Costa Santos, Ivo;
Carvalhal, Jorge; Brederode Santos, Maria Emília; Odete Valente,
Maria; Santos, Paula e Vargas, Rosália (2007). Relatório Final do
Debate Nacional sobre a Educação. CNE, Lisboa
Thematic area 5 – Science, research and education development, p.
125-144 (see recomendations)
9
New governance model
Governance model in Law n.º 108/88, 24th October, 1988
(Law of Universities Autonomy). Governing bodies:
University Assembly (academic staff, non academic staff and students
representatives as defined in the statutes)
Rector (elected by University Assembly)
Senate (academic staff, non academic staff and students representatives
external, as defined in statutes)
Administrative council (rector, one vice-rector, administrator, one
student representative, , aditional members acording to statutes) 10
New governance model
• Law nº 62/2007, 10th September 2007 – RJIES.
Governing bodies (art. 78º):
• General Council (elects its Chair, the
Rector/President)
• Rector in Uni. and U. I., President in P.I.
• Management Council
11
New governance model
• The Rector/president is the highest governing body (o
órgão superior de governo e de representação externa
da respectiva instituição), RJIES art. 85º
• The General Council is responsible for:
– Electing its Chair and the Rector;
– Appreciating the rector/president and the management
council’s acts
– Proposing the initiatives considered necessary to the proper
running of the institution
– Appreciating rector/president proposals concerning:
strategic and action plans, general guidelines on scientific,
pedagogic, financial and patrimonial maters …
12
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
• The Main Goal of the project developed for CNE, at the
university of Aveiro (January 2011– Summer 2012):
to study the experience of implementing the new
governance model of HE institutions (RJIES, 2007) in
Portugal and to analyse the experiences in other
countries which have adopted similar models of HE
governance (Austria, Denmark, England, Finland and
Netherlands)
• The team: Júlio Pedrosa (U. Aveiro), coordinator
Hália Costa Santos (I. P. Tomar), Margarida Mano (U. Coimbra)
and Teresa Gaspar (CNE)
13
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
• Methods
– Analysis of institutional information from web sites and
public documentation
– Interviews to 26 (total 30) Presidents of HEI Councils
– Transcription and analysis of the registerd interviews
(ATLAS.ti 6.2 used in content analysis)
• Workshop with qualified experts to present the first
version of the Report
14
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
• Focus of the analysis
– GC Presidency: competencies, profiles, expectations, main
dificulties
– General Concil: competencies and nature of the entity ; dimension
and composition; funcioning model, relationships between Rector
and GC
– Critical institutional issues/questions: legislation; institutional
estrategy; relacionship between the GC and other university
bodies; dificulties and sugestions for improvement
15
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
CG – Membership, Competences, Mode of Operation
– 15 to 35 members, according to the institution dimension, the
number of schools and of research units (art. 81º, RJIES)
– Concerns: co-opting methods, number of students, number of
externals
– Observed dimensions
• 1 GC with minimum, 15
• 1 maximum, 35
• 15 GC with dimensions 19 -25
16
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
CG – Membership, Competences, Mode of Operation
– Mode of election of internal members and of co-option of
externals
– The number of externals and their involvement,
– The internal membership (participation of candidates to
rector/president, of schools deans, … )
17
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
CG – Membership, Competences, Mode of Operation
– Competences more frequently mentioned:
• Rector/President and Chair elections
• Budget approval
• Strategic plan approval (a variety of practices).
18
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
• Questions and constrains
– Need for developing and consolidating shared and transparent
interpretations of the GC mission and competences
– Need for internal clarification and development of the
relationships between the CG and the other governing bodies.
– Difficulties concerning the capacity for governing the institution as
a whole entity (schools autonomy creates difficulties)
19
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
Questions and constrains
– Budget approval is the most frequently refered competence of
GC, as an example of the non existence of proper running
conditions (simple formality?)
– Absence of articulation with management council
– Resistance to structural changes and risk taking
– Financial constrains and university governance autonomy
20
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
Questions and constrains
• The network of institutions and the system missions (what network
of institutions, what for!)
• The need for strategic rethinking of institutions missions and the
respective education and training offers
• Need for clarification, development and consolidation of the
foundational status
21
Questions and constrains
• Cooperation with society and fund raising
•
Level of internationalization and capacity of atracting international
students
• Internal structures and organization for good governance of such
complex entities
22
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
• Important findings:
– Chairs of GC value the governance model very much
– The model has been adopted and implemented without resistances
– The issues, constrains and concerns identified can be answered
23
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
• Most questions raised should find answers
internally by adjusting statutes, regulations and
improving practices
– However, some constrains mentioned deserve attention
and intervention at Government or Parliament level:
autonomy; transparent and stable financement model;
human resources and financial management; the
interference of Central Administration; the HE system or
network missions and governance
24
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
Agradecimentos
• Conselho Nacional de Educação e sua Presidente, Prof. Ana Maria
Bettencourt
• Presidentes dos Conselhos Gerais
• Hália Costa Santos (I. P. Tomar), Margarida Mano (U. Coimbra) and Teresa
Gaspar (CNE)
• Rodrigo Lourenço e Liliana Santos
• Prof. Pedro Teixeira, Prof. Teresa Geraldo, Dr. Manuel Carmelo Rosa e Prof.
Luísa Cerdeira
• Universidade de Aveiro
25
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
– Diferences between the Portuguese model and the case
studied:
• Council/Board dimension and number of external members
• Level of understanding of competences of the different
governing bodies
• Relationships with governments (autonomy, financing models;
plurianual contracts ...)
• Governing bodies:
– Board, University Council, Supervisory Board, Council, Board of
Governors;
– Rector, Vice-Chancelor, Principal … or Rectorate.
– Senate, Academic Council
26
Where do we stand five years after a new
governance model?
– Council/Board composition
• Austria: 7 or 9 members, all are external
• Denmarc: 11 members (majority of externals)
• Finland: 7, 9-14 members (external >40%)
• Netherlands: Supervisory Board (5 external members
designated by the Ministry)
• England 1-25 (60), external
27