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

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.

4. 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. President of the Academic Senate of the Second Faculty of Medicine of CU		Prof. MUDr. Vladimír Komárek, CSc. Dean of the Second Faculty of Medicine of CU
PhDr. Tomáš Nigrin, Ph.D. President of the Academic Senate of CU

CHANGES IN THE 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 of Charles University has adopted the following changes in the Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University as its internal regulation:

Article I

The Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University of 2 June 2017 is changed as follows:

1. New Article 4a is inserted behind Article 4; the new Article reads as follows:

 “Article 4a

Hybrid or Distance Meetings of the Research Board

1. The Research Board meetings may take hybrid or distance form, if:  

1. under a legal regulation or a directive issued on its basis the Research Board may hold distance meetings;
2. under an internal regulation of the University or a state of affairs declared  according to it the Research Board may hold distance meetings;
3. for reasons worthy of special consideration the Research Board decides to do so at its meeting or by voting outside the meeting under Article 7.

1. The fact that the meeting takes hybrid or distance form is communicated to the members of the Research Board electronically not later than three days before the date of the meeting.
2. The details of the hybrid and distance meetings of the Research Board are determined by the Dean’s directive.”

 

2.  New Article 7a is inserted behind Article 7; the new Article reads as follows:

“Article 7a

Establishment and Voting of the Associate Professorship (Habilitation) Commissions and Full Professorship Appointment Commissions

1. Meetings of Associate Professorship (Habilitation) Commissions and Full Professorship Appointment Commissions may take hybrid or distance form.

2. Associate Professorship (Habilitation) Commissions and Full Professorship Appointment Commissions may vote electronically in the form which ensures secrecy of the vote.

3. The details of hybrid and distance meetings and electronic voting of the Associate Professorship (Habilitation) Commission are determined in a Dean’s directive.”

Article II

1. The change in the Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University was approved by the Academic Senate of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University on 20 January 2021.

2. This change in the regulation comes into force on the date of approval by the Academic Senate of Charles University.[1]

3. This change in the Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University comes into effect on the day following the date of legal force.

 

MUDr. Milan Trojánek, Ph.D. President of the Academic Senate of the Second Faculty of Medicine of CU		Prof. MUDr. Vladimír Komárek, CSc. Dean of the Second Faculty of Medicine of CU
Prof. Ing. František Zahálka, Ph.D. President of the Academic Senate of CU

 

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 annual implementation of strategic plans of the Faculty;  
3. proposes to the Rector the 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 a cancellation of a programme of study;[4]
6. comments on the Dean’s proposal to submit an application for 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 awarding 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 of the Academic Senate of the Faculty (“the Senate”).

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

4. The Dean may appoint an outstanding scientist who significantly contributed to the prestige of the Faculty 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 its agenda 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, 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 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 4a

Hybrid or Distance Meetings of the Research Board

1. The Research Board meetings may take hybrid or distance form, if:  

1. under a legal regulation or a directive issued on its basis the Research Board may hold distance meetings;
2. under an internal regulation of the University or a state of affairs declared  according to it the Research Board may hold distance meetings;
3. for reasons worthy of special consideration the Research Board decides to do so at its meeting or by voting outside the meeting under Article 7.

2. The fact that the meeting takes hybrid or distance form is communicated to the members of the Research Board electronically not later than three days before the date of the meeting.

3. The details of the hybrid and distance meetings of the Research Board are determined by the Dean’s directive.

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 whole meeting or its part as a closed meeting if the openness of the meeting could jeopardise the personality rights of an individual, or an important interest of the Faculty or CU.

4. The meeting of the Research Board considering the nomination for associate professorship or full professorship is usually closed during the debate on 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 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 extraordinary 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.

4. 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 7a

Establishment and Voting of the Associate Professorship (Habilitation) Commissions and Full Professorship Appointment Commissions

1. Meetings of Associate Professorship (Habilitation) Commissions and Full Professorship Appointment Commissions may take hybrid or distance form.

2. Associate Professorship (Habilitation) Commissions and Full Professorship Appointment Commissions may vote electronically in the form which ensures secrecy of the vote.

3. The details of hybrid and distance meetings and electronic voting of the Associate Professorship (Habilitation) Commission are determined in a Dean’s directive.

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 24 May 2017.
The Academic Senate of the University approved this Code on 2 June 2017.

 

 

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

 

1. The change in the Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University was approved by the Academic Senate of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University on 20 January 2021.

2. This change in the regulation comes into force on the date of approval by the Academic Senate of Charles University.[10]

3. This change in the Code of Procedure for the Research Board of the Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University comes into effect on the day following the date of legal force.

 

MUDr. Milan Trojánek, Ph.D. President of the Academic Senate of the Second Faculty of Medicine of CU		Prof. MUDr. Vladimír Komárek, CSc. Dean of the Second Faculty of Medicine of CU
Prof. Ing. František Zahálka, Ph.D. President of the Academic Senate of CU