Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University

Validity: 2 June 2017
Effective from: 1 October 2017 (continues)

 

CODE OF PROCEDURE FOR THE RESEARCH BOARD OF THE SECOND FACULTY OF MEDICINE OF CHARLES UNIVERSITY

Under section 27 (1) (b) of Act No. 111/1998 Sb., to regulate higher education institutions and to change and amend other laws (“the Higher Education Act”), as amended, the Academic Senate of the Second Faculty of Medicine has adopted the following Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University as an internal regulation:

Article 1

Introductory Provision[1]

The Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine (“the Research Board”) is a self-governing academic body of the Second Faculty of Medicine (“the Faculty”) under section 25 (1) (c) of the Higher Education Act. The status and activities of the Research Board are governed by the Higher Education Act.[2]

Article 2

Powers

1.      The Research Board of the Faculty:

  1. considers a draft of the strategic plan of educational and creative activities of the Faculty prepared in accordance with the strategic plan of Charles University (“CU”);
  2. considers drafts of the annual implementation of strategic plans of the Faculty;  
  3. proposes to the Rector a plan to submit the draft application for accreditation, extend the scope of accreditation, or prolong the period of validity of accreditation of programmes of study implemented at the Faculty;[3]
  4. exercises powers in procedures for the granting of associate and full professorship;3
  5. considers proposals for the cancellation of a programme of study;[4]
  6. comments on the Dean’s proposal to submit an application for the accreditation of procedures for the granting of associate and full professorship in the case of procedures implemented at the Faculty to the extent determined by the Higher Education Act;
  7. submits proposals for the awarding of medals of Charles University or the Faculty.[5]

2.      The Research Board comments on matters submitted by the Dean or if an internal regulation of the University[6] or the Faculty so provides.

Article 3

Composition

1.      Members of the Research Board are outstanding representatives of the subject areas in which the Faculty carries out educational and creative activities. At least one third of its members are persons other than the members of the academic community of CU.  

2.      Members of the Research Board are appointed and dismissed by the Dean upon prior approval from the Academic Senate of the Faculty (“the Senate”).

3.      The Dean submits a proposal to approve the dismissal and appointment of members of the Research Board to the Senate within three months of his appointment.  

4.      The Dean may appoint an outstanding scientist who significantly contributed to the prestige of the Faculty as an honorary member of the Research Board; the honorary member has a right to participate in meetings of the Research Board without the right to vote. The Dean asks for an opinion of the Senate before the appointment of an honorary member.

Article 4

Meetings

1.      The Research Board meetings are convened by the Dean or the Vice-Dean designated by him at least five times per year.  

2.      The schedule of meetings of the Research Board and its agenda is set out by the Dean.

3.      The Dean is required to convene an extraordinary meeting of the Research Board if at least one third of its members request it.

4.      The schedule of meetings and their agendas are published in the publicly accessible part of the Faculty website reasonably in advance.

5.      Before each meeting, an invitation is sent electronically to the members of the Research Board, usually together with source documents for individual items which will be considered and usually no later than seven days in advance. In exceptional and justified cases, particularly due to time constraints or in matters of urgency, the source documents may be distributed to the members of the Research Board right before its meeting.

6.      The minutes of a meeting of the Research Board are verified by the Dean.

7.      The minutes of a meeting of the Research Board are published in the publicly accessible part of the Faculty website.

Article 5

The Course of a Meeting

1.      The meetings of the Research Board are presided over by the Dean or a Vice-Dean designated by him.

2.      A member of the Research Board, a Vice-Dean, a member of the Board of the Senate, and an honorary member of the Research Board may speak at a meeting of the Research Board. Other persons or requested experts may speak only if the Research Board agrees to it.

3.      The meetings of the Research Board are public. Upon the motion of the Dean or the designated Vice-Dean, the Research Board may decide to hold the entire meeting or a part thereof as a closed meeting if the openness of the meeting could jeopardise the personal rights of an individual, or an important interest of the Faculty or CU.

4.      The meeting of the Research Board where nominations for associate professorship or full professorship are considered is usually closed during the debate on the reasoning of the result of voting.

Article 6

Resolution

1.      The Research Board has a quorum if an absolute majority of its regular members are present.

2.      A resolution is passed if an absolute majority of the persons present voted in its favour, unless otherwise provided by the Higher Education Act.[7]

3.      A nomination for full professorship or, where appropriate, associate professorship, will not be considered if fewer than two thirds of all regular members of the Research Board attend the meeting. Such nomination may be considered if the candidate for full professor or associate professor provided his consent with such procedure.[8]

4.      The Research Board decides by making resolutions. Its vote is public unless the Research Board decides otherwise.

5.      The Research Board decides by secret ballot in cases stipulated by law or an internal regulation of CU or the Faculty, particularly in the procedure for the granting of full or associate professorship, or where agreed by the Research Board.   

6.      The member of the Research Board marks his vote on a ballot paper.

Article 7

Rules of Voting Outside the Meeting

1.      If the matter is urgent, or if      with respect to the proposal it is not possible or appropriate to convene the meeting of the Research Board, the Dean or the Vice-Dean designated by him in writing may direct that the vote by taken outside the meeting of the Research Board (“voting outside the meeting”). It is not possible to perform voting outside the meeting with respect to nominations for full professorship, proposals to appoint special professors, nominations for associate professorship, or nominations for the degree of honorary doctor. The Research Board approves the record of voting outside the meeting at its next meeting. The list of members of the Research Board indicating how each of them voted is an integral part of the record of voting outside the meeting.

2.      The announcement of the voting, the text of the proposal, and a ballot paper are sent to all members of the Research Board via closed electronic conference. The announcement provides the time limit for the consideration of the proposal and voting which may not be shorter than five days from the date of sending.

3.      The vote is public. The member of the Research Board sends the filled in ballot paper which provides his name and surname and his vote (yes/no/I abstain) within the time limit provided in Article 7 (2), otherwise his vote will be invalid. The member of the Research Board may refuse the voting outside the meeting in the same way and within the same time limit.

.        The proposal is considered to be approved by voting outside the meeting if an absolute majority of all members of the Research Board voted for it; this does not apply if at least one third of all members of the Research Board refused to vote on the proposal outside the meeting.

Article 8

Ensuring the Activities

Material and administrative support for the activities of the Research Board is ensured by the Dean’s Office of the Faculty.

Article 9

Final Provisions

1.      The Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University approved by the Academic Senate of Charles University on 24 January 2014 is hereby repealed.

2.      This Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University comes into force on the date of approval by the Academic Senate of the University.[9]

3.      This Code of Procedure for the Research Board comes into effect on 1 October 2017.

 

The Academic Senate of the Faculty approved this Code on ………………………………

The Academic Senate of the University approved this Code on ……………………………

 

          Doc. MUDr. Ondřej Hrušák, Ph.D.                          Prof. MUDr. Vladimír Komárek, CSc.
         President of the Academic Senate                                                   Dean
    of the Second Faculty of Medicine of CU                  of the Second Faculty of Medicine of CU

                                            PhDr. Tomáš Nigrin, Ph.D.
                                  President of the Academic Senate of CU

 

[1] 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.

[2] Sections 29 and 30 of the Higher Education Act.

[3] Article 3 of the Accreditation Code of CU.

[4] Article 28 (2) of the Accreditation Code of CU.

[5] Article 3 (g), Article 6 (c) of the Rules for Awarding Medals of CU.

[6] Such as Article 6 (1) of the Grant Rules of CU.

[7] Sections 72 (10) and 74 (6) of the Higher Education Act.

[8] Article 3 (7) and Article 12 (5) of the Code of Procedure for the Granting of Associate Professorship and Full Professorship of Charles University.

[9] S. 9 (1) (b) of the Higher Education Act.

Published: 13. 6. 2017 / Last update: 26. 9. 2019 / Responsible person: Mgr. Petr Andreas, Ph.D.