Consistory – the obscure subject of state control Zoltán RÓNAY
4. A practice: the realization of the Hungarian consistories
Neither classifying nor comparison affected the expected results, so, we decided to investigate the consistory closer, in practice. Therefore, we researched in the spring of 2018, and half a year later, we repeated it. We used empirical, mixed (qualitative and quantitative) document analysis of the web pages of state HEIs (except the National University of Public Service, where neither chancellor nor consistory work). We studied the 27 Hungarian state HEIs (26 universities and one college) on the ground the following typology of their website:
• whether the fact of consistory’s existence on the website;
• are the CV-s of members available on the website?;
• are the decisions made by the consistory available on the website?;
• is there their own regulation on the website?
To summarize, we researched the transparency of consistory (and with it indirectly of the university). Every single information which was available was marked with “+”. The non-available information – including when the information is on the website but protected by password – was handled as non-public and was marked with “0”.
To study the websites directly and investigate the universities’ transparency was necessary because the government does not publish valid data on this topic. Although there is a table on the government’s website (without date), which contains data of state HEIs’ consistory: name, current position and the proposed organisation of each member of consistories, but without the date of publishing we can suppose, it is already not in force.43
The other aspect on which we assessed the transparency was the quality of availability, which means in our context, how many steps are needed to find information about consistory. When the information was available in
• 2 steps at the most, we assessed it with mark 1;
• 3 steps, we assessed it with mark 2
• 4 steps, we assessed it with mark 3
• 5 steps, we assessed it with mark 4
• more than 5 steps; we assessed it with mark 5
When the consistory or one of its information was not available, we marked it with
“n.c.” (not be construed).
Our analysis was made first between January and March of 2018, and it was repeated in October and November of 2018. The results of the analysis are collected in Table 1 and Table 2. The comparison of the two analysis and its evaluation is in the next Chapter (Findings)
43http://www.kormany.hu/download/6/7b/90000/Konziszt%C3%B3riumok%20list%C3%A1ja.pdf
Table 1 Summary of original research (01-03.2018)
Higher Education Institutions44 Website CV Decisions Regulations Availability Number of Data Állatorvostudományi Egyetem
44 HEIs where data was available are marked with grey colour
45 not be construed
46 protected by password
Higher Education Institutions44 Website CV Decisions Regulations Availability Number of Data (University of Theatre and Film Arts
Budapest) + 0 0 0 2
Table 2 Summary of control research (10-11.2018)
Higher Education Institutions47 Website CV Decisions Regulations Availability Number of Data Állatorvostudományi Egyetem
47 HEIs where data was available are marked with grey colour
Higher Education Institutions47 Website CV Decisions Regulations Availability Number of Data (University of Theatre and Film Arts
Budapest) + 0 0 0 2
5. Findings
The rationale of repeating the comparison in such a short time was to get the answer to the question, whether anything has changed after the general elections in the year 2018 and the ministry’s reorganization.
The original research showed that any kind of data but only one, which is mostly the list of consistory members’ names) was available by 15 HEIs, which is little more than half of the state HEIs (55,55%). There were not any data (none information was in websites) by 12 HEIs. It means that the state institutions do not care about the consistory, the transparency, or they do not think that the consistory or information about it can be substantial. In connection with these latter ones necessary to remark, that there was one HEI, whose website contains probably lots of data, but the site is saved by password. In case of another HEI, the fact can be found via the searcher tool, and there were three HEIs, in which the consistory was only among news (once). More than 1 data (of course between these 15) was available by 7 HEIs: 2 data at the most by 3 HEIs, 3 data at the most by 3 HEIs, and all data was available only by 1 HEI.
The control research showed only little changes. Any kind of data but only 1 (mostly the list of members’ names) is available by 15 HEIs. Although the number was not changed, one university disappeared, another got into the group. It means that no information is in websites by still 12 HEIs, (one of them the university which protected data with password). Although previously the fact of consistory can be found in the case of one HEI, this information today, already cannot be found. And from the ending time of the original research, the news of 3 HEIs already are not available either among archives.
Analysing the HEIs, which publish more than 1 data (between these 15) can be found some interesting changes: instead, the previous three, 2 data at the most is available only by 1 HEI. 3 data at the most are available one more – 4 – HEIs. All data are available at the same one HEI, but it is necessary to mention that the decisions are not being refreshed.
Another approach to transparency is to investigate which content can be found on websites. According to the original research, on the website were available
• the consistory’s members’ list of names at 15 HEIs,
• the members’ CV at 3 HEIs,
• the decisions at 4 HEIs (and in at 2 HEIs with protected by password),
• the regulations at 5 HEIs, (and in 1 HEI was reachable via searcher tool, and in another one the visitors were informed, that “it will be soon”).
The control research showed a little change, because the members’ list of names is available at with one less (14) HEIs, the members’ CV also with one less (and an HEI uploaded only two members CV), the number of decisions did not change (still 4 HEIs; but in 3 cases the archives are not up to date, and 2 HEIs protect it by password). Fortunately, the number of regulations increased, although with only one (6 HEIs; and 1 HEI made it reachable only in the menu of a list of documents and regulations), The University which said, that the regulation „will be soon” available, have not uploaded it yet.
The research studied how easy the information is available. To assess it, we used scores from one to five, as we mentioned afore. 1 score (which means the information was available with 2 steps) got 11 HEIs, but among them were five, which published only the list of names, were three, which made available the CV too, four uploaded also the decisions, and only two the regulations. 2 scores (3 steps) got 1 HEI which uploaded the list of names, and none other. 3 scores (4 steps) got 1 HEI with the list of names again, 4 scores (5 steps) got 1 HEI which published only the fact of the existence of the consistory.
At this point, we can suppose, that the level and amount of content have a connection to the availability, but surprisingly the 1 HEI which got the worst score (5), because the content was available with more than 5 steps, uploaded 3 data. The control research presented that the changes of availability not significant among the best score won HEIs, only the number of regulation publisher HEIs increased, from 2 to 4. The number of 2 scores HEIs changed to 2; every other data is the same.
6. Summary
From the evaluation of the research, including the comparison, we could declare, that not only the rules of regulations are incomplete, but there is no information, whether the higher education institutes have an idea what the consistory is, what the aim of its working is, and how should they handle it. If they have, there is not enough available information about HEIs which make clear how consistories work at HEIs, how they can support the work of university management. There is almost no information to study and analyse the operation of consistories. Our research was the first, which was dedicated to understand, and to explain this body. It shows us; this topic has been less enjoyable to be a subject of research until now. By analysing the data, we can announce, that the consistories’ working can be characterized with the almost complete missing of the transparency. If an organisation’s rights and obligations are underregulated, and it works by the lack of detailed regulation while it has strong power, it is more important to operate transparently. In this case, only the basic legal norms and legal framework can guarantee the rightful operation.
Nevertheless, we can control its realisation when we can compare the real work to these
guarantees. Without transparency, it is impossible to determine the legitimacy of the operation of the consistory.
If we assess the differences between the two research periods, we can experience, that the difference does not have a connection to the election or the reorganise of government. Some changes (in 3 cases the measurement of information decreased, in 2 cases increased – „and soon is not really soon”) is not significant. The connection between elections as well as government reorganization and transparency of consistory is not proofed, we can suppose, the transparency depends on the person of HEI management (rectors and/or chancellors).
The missing transparency among the introduced legal norms marks serious problems, either the legislation or the state universities’ operation. Though, we have to mention a more serious problem, which characterizes the relationship between state government and universities, autonomy, and academic freedom. The unregulated, non-transparent operation without legal guarantees always makes possible the infringements of rights, in that case, the possibility of violating autonomy.
References
Bárány, V. F. (2015): A felsőoktatás-igazgatás rendszerének átalakítása Magyarországon. Kodifikáció és Közigazgatás, 4(1), 89−99.
Battis, U. (2009): Das Amt des Universitätskanzlers: Ein Auslandsmodell? Die Öffentliche Verwaltung, 62(13), 518–522.
Braukmann, M. (2004): Mangelnde demokratische Legitimation und funktionswidrige Organisationsstrukturen der niedersächsischen Stiftungsuniversitäten.
Juristenzeitung, 59(13), 662−666.
Burgi, M. & Gräf, I. (2010): Das (Verwaltungs-)organisationsrecht der Hochschulen im Spiegel der neueren Gesetzgebung und Verfassungsrechtsprechung, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt. 125(18), 1125–1134.
De Groof, J. Švec, J. and Neave, G. (1998): Democracy and governance in higher education, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International
Gross, T. (1999): Das Kuratorium. Hochschulautonomie durch institutionalisierte Kooperation? Die Öffentliche Verwaltung, 52(21), 895−902.
Kaplin, W. A. & Lee, B. A. (2013): The Law of Higher Education, Volume 1, John Wiley &
Sons inc, 2013
Keczer, G. (2009): A magyar felsőoktatás és az egyetemirányítás változásai az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchiában. Közép-Európai Közlemények, 2(2-3/4-5), 16–21.
Keczer, G. (2016): Variációk egy témára – az állami kontroll eszközei a felsőoktatásban.
In: Kováts, G. (ed.): A kancellári rendszer bevezetése a magyar felsőoktatásban.
Tapasztalatok és várakozások. Budapest: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Nemzetközi Felsőoktatási Kutatások Központja, 58−84.
Kováts, Gergely (2016): Előszó. In: Kováts, G, (ed.): A kancellári rendszer bevezetése a magyar felsőoktatásban. Tapasztalatok és várakozások. Budapest: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Nemzetközi Felsőoktatási Kutatások Központja, 5-6.
Lederer, P. (2006): A comparative analysis of the liability of non-executive directors in the UK and of members of the Supervisory Board in Germany. European Business Law Review, 6, 1575–1613.
Nolden, Frank (2011): Aufbau und Organisation der Hochschule. In: Nolden, Frank, Rottmann, Frank, Brinktrine, Ralf & Kurz, Achim (ed.): Sächsisches
Hochschulgesetz. Kommentar. (pp. 345-446) Berlin, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
.Rónay, Z. (2017): Egyéni és testületi felelősség a felsőoktatási intézmények vezetésében. Doktori értekezés. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem
Rónay, Z. & Kováts, G. (2018): Ágazatirányítás 2008 és 2017 között. In: Kováts, G. &
Temesi, J. (ed.), A magyar felsőoktatás egy évtizede, 2008 – 2017. (pp. 60–68).
Budapest: Budapest Corvinus Egyetem, Nemzetközi Felsőoktatási Kutatások Központja.
Rónay, Z. (2018a): Centralizations and Autonomies: The Delimitation of Education by the Hungarian Government. In: Popov, N., Wolhuter, Ch., Smith, J. M., Hilton, G., Ogunleye, J., Achinewhu-Nworgu E. & Niemczyk, E. (ed.), Education in Modern Society, BCES Conference Books, 2018, Volume 16. (pp. 177–182). Sofia:
Bulgarian Comparative Education Society
Rónay, Z. (2018b): Az intézményvezetés átalakulása. In: Kováts, G. & Temesi, J. (ed.), A magyar felsőoktatás egy évtizede, 2008 – 2017. (pp. 102–109). Budapest:
Budapest Corvinus Egyetem, Nemzetközi Felsőoktatási Kutatások Központja.
Russo, C. J. (eds.) (2013): Handbook of Comparative Higher Education Law. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Education
Veres, P. & Golovics, J. (2016): Új szereplők a magyar felsőoktatásban: Kancellári rendszer és konzisztórium. In: Kováts, G. (ed.), A kancellári rendszer bevezetése a magyar felsőoktatásban. Tapasztalatok és várakozások. (pp. 7–22). Budapest:
Budapest Corvinus Egyetem, Nemzetközi Felsőoktatási Kutatások Központja.
Von Coelln, Christian (2011): Das Binnenrecht der Hochschule in, Hartmer, Michael és Detmer, Hubert (ed.): Hochschulrecht: Ein Handbuch für die Praxis. (pp. 283-330) Heidelberg, C.F. Müller Verlag.