【作者】 张晓冬；

【导师】 刘献君；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 教育经济与管理， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 党的十五大、十七大、十八大报告都明确提出了健全权力运行制约和监督体系,要求确保权力正确规范运行,这表明党对权力运行机制认识的深化。我国公办高校内部权力高度集中,顶层权力没有得到有效的约束,权力制约机制非制度化运行明显。基于以上背景和现象,本研究主要对如何构建和完善大学内部权力制约机制问题进行了深入分析和研究。围绕核心概念“权力制约机制”,本研究遵循“(权力)主体—(权力)关系—(权力制约)机制”的研究思路,运用多案例与历史和比较研究的方法,从三个方面对提出的问题进行了回答,并形成本论文的内容框架。通过历史的研究分析发现,中世纪大学内部权力制约机制主要是基于宗教信仰、神圣的宣誓与大学章程而形成的文化制约权力机制形式。近代大学因为规模、功能的扩展以及国家权力的介入,形成了典型的“学术-行政”权力结构二重性的权力制约权力机制主导类型。现代大学作为利益相关者组织,除基本的制度制约权力机制、权力制约权力机制外,以董事会为形式的社会权利制约权力机制是其突出特征。从大学治理结构变革的角度划分,我国高校内部权力制约机制经历了行政控权的京师大学堂时期,教授治校的北京大学和西南联合大学时期,党组/党委领导下的校长/校务委员会负责的新中国大学时期。权力制约机制除民国时期典型的“三会”分权制约机制比较突出外,主要表现为“螳螂捕蝉”式垂直权力制约权力机制和基于个人道德自觉的道德(文化)制约权力机制。前者具有自上而下的监督意味,后者具有一定的“人格”依赖性。通过对美、英、德、日四国高校内部权力制约机制的横向比较研究发现,美国高校内部权力制约机制仍表现为以董事会制为特征的权利制约权力机制形式,这一机制是以分权治理和大学自治为基础的；英国高校内部权力制约机制表现为以权利和文化制约权力机制为特征的“牛桥”大学模式,以“董事会、理事会和评议会”三会分权制约机制为特征的“92前”大学模式和以董事会为形式的权利制约权力机制为特征的“92后”大学模式；德国大学权力制约机制以“教授治校”为基础,以分权制约机制为主要特征,逐步转向寻求以董事会为形式的社会权利制约权力机制类型；日本大学在《国立大学法人法》颁布实施后,形成以校长为首的新型集权控制模式,但是寻求外行参与大学治理的社会制约权力机制是其机制构建的趋势之一。通过调研访谈和统计分析,本研究认为完善各项规章制度,依法治校仍是我国高校当前和今后一段时期要重点解决的议题。从权力制约机制运行效果看,我国高校权力制约机制存在非制度化运行的问题,主要表现在党委领导(决策)与党委书记领导(决策)的矛盾、大学权力与权利的矛盾、两个“一把手”的博弈和基于非正式人际关系的权力“潜规则”文化问题,以及“法治与人治”的矛盾问题等方面。针对以上问题,本研究从四个维度提出了政策建议与对策,认为：(1)完善权力制约权力机制,校党委会应主要发挥大学治理权,保留大学的重要决策批准权；校长实施遴选制,实现校长选举与任命相分离,推进大学校长职业化；赋予学术委员会对各类决策的违“章”否决权。同时,根据董/理事会与教代会制度建设要求,提高社会力量和民主力量对大学权力制约的效果,并最终形成“党、政、学、社”四权差异决策、优势互补的内部权力运行关系。(2)完善制度制约权力机制应在修订完善高教法的基础上,明确大学章程和各项内部规则的法律效力,保证大学权力依法行使和程序正当。同时,将大学纪检监察与审计部门从学校系统独立出来,由上级纪委监察审计主管部门领导,实施对学校内部各权力主体的监督检查。(3)对于完善权利制约权力机制的基本建议是,主管部门和学校应明确董事会的合法地位及参与大学决策的机制,赋予董事会对学校决策权力和法人代表的问责权、评估权与推荐权等。赋予教代会对大学主要权力主体的选举权与提请解聘权,确定教代会议事规则及相关规程的法律效力,完善教代会的运行机制。确保教代会在党委领导下独立自主的行使民主管理与监督权利。(4)对于文化制约权力机制的完善建议是,重构学术生态文化,构建党委治理、校长管理的大学政治与行政权力运行文化,营造廉洁的政治权力治理文化、高效负责的行政权力服务文化、自由创新的学术权力自治文化和和谐共赢的民主权利监督文化。促进制度、规则向权力主体价值信念的转变,以此形成权力运行的文化自觉和文化制约权力的效果。更多还原

【Abstract】 The15th,17th&18th reports of Communist Party of China explicitly put forwards the improvement of power restriction and supervision system to ensure powers running correctly. The reports above mean our party a deepening cognition on the power operation mechanism. At the same time, internal power of public higher learning institution is highly concentrated in, as s result, the campus top power-holders without being effectively restricted, which runs in a way of non-institutionalized. Based on the above background and problems, this study mainly focuses on the problem of how to build and perfect the university internal power restriction mechanisms. Around the core concept of "power restriction mechanism", this study follows a research train of thought of "(power) subjects,(power) relations and (power) restriction mechanisms" to answer the questions with case study, historical and comparative research methods. The paper’s framework is formed on three proposed problems.The medieval university internal power restriction mechanism, through the study of history, is mainly mechanism of limiting the power with culture based on religion, sacred oath and University charter. That of modern time’s universities is mainly "academic administrative power" duality of power restricting power mechanism type because of the enlargement of the scales, functions of universities and the intervention of state power. Modern universities as a stakeholder organization, in addition to the basic restriction mechanism, its outstanding features of power restrict mechanism is in the form of social rights of board.According universities internal power relations change, Chinese colleges and universities internal power restriction mechanisms have experienced periods of the administrative control of the imperial university, faculties governance of Beijing University and the southwest united university, and the period of under the leadership of party committee of the People’s Republic of China. Power restriction mechanism in addition to the typical of senate, administration and faculty decentralized restriction mechanism in special times of the southwest united university, are mainly show feature of "the mantis catching cicada" type. It is a vertical power restriction mechanism. Anther power restriction mechanism based on personal moral conscious. The former appears something of vertical supervision, while the later mainly depends on individual morality.By comparing the internal power restriction mechanism in universities among the United States, Britain, Germany and Japan, the author found the stick out feature of the US universities’ power restriction mechanism is still mechanism of rights restricting powers by the board of directors’system. This mechanism is based on decentralized management and university autonomy. There are three models of power restriction mechanisms in British universities, which are model of Oxford and Cambridge universities, pre-1992and post-1992universities and colleges. The former mainly is a mechanism of restricting power with rights and culture, while the latter is of decentralized restriction mechanism and right restricting power mechanism by the board of directors; German universities power restriction mechanism on the basis of "faculty governance" and decentralized governance mechanism gradually to seek social rights, in the form of board of directors, restricting power mechanism type. After the national university corporation law enacted, Japanese universities form a new centralized control mode, headed by President but for amateur participation in university governance for the social constraints of power mechanism.Through interviews and statistical analysis, the author found that perfect each rules and regulations is still the current and future issues needed to solve in Chinese public universities. Seeing from the effect of power restriction mechanisms, the author found essential issue is its non-institutionalized operation problems in campus in China, main performs the follow contradictions, which are the contradiction between the leadership of the party committee and that of secretary of the party committee, the contradiction between power and right at the university,"two heads" of the game, and informal relationships based on power "hidden rules" cultural issues, and the contradiction of "rule by law and rule by man", etc.According to the problems above, this study, from four dimensions, proposes the countermeasures. First of all, the party committee should mainly play right of university governance and reserve of approval of important decisions at the university; President Selection system needed to be implemented, the government and universities should make President election and appointment of phases separated, promote university principal professionalization; Giving the academic committee of violations "chapter" veto power. At the same time, the author suggests improving the effectiveness of the social and democratic powers in university power restriction as both system requirements, and finally forming differences decision-making and complementary advantages in the internal power relations among party, administrators, professors and social stakeholders. Second, the author advises to revise and perfect the higher education law of china, and to be sure the legal effect of universities statutes and other internal rules. The party committee and president and other internal power-holders in universities should guarantee exercise by laws and due processes. While, discipline inspection committee and auditing department should be independently exercised for its’ duties led by higher committees outside of universities. Third, the author argues that government and universities should definitude the legal status of the board and its mechanism of participating in university decision-making, and empower the board rights of query, evaluate and recommend on president for duties. The author also argues guaranteeing faculty delegates’congress rights to vote and to ask dismissing the president and other power-holders. Simultaneously, government and university power-holders should definitude the legal validity of running laws and rules of faculty delegates’ congress and perfect the operation mechanism of it. Based on above, government and university power-holders should ensure faculty delegates’ congress run its duties independently under the leadership of the party committee. Last improvement proposal is for the cultural restrictions. The study suggests university power-holders to reconstruct academic ecological culture, which are culture of clean political power governance, culture of efficient and responsible for administrative power service, culture of free academic power autonomous and innovation and culture of harmonious and democratic rights of supervision. Universities’power-holders should convert university statutes, rules transform into the value of faith, so as to each power-holder executes power&right in a way of cultural consciousness, and to be sure effectiveness of cultural restriction powers.更多还原