ACT student Appeals under higher degree rules

AUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF THEOLOGY

 

 

Student Appeals under Higher Degree Rules

 

 

Approval Resolution No.: DEL 0705-024     Date: 21 May 2007

Revision Approval Resolution No.: DIR1106-18.1B        Date: 24 June 2011

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Part A: Policy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1

  1. Purpose and Scope……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
  2. Policy Level……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
  3. 3. Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
  4. Definitions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
  5. Principles ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2

(A)    Principles underpinning this policy ……………………………………………………………………..2 (B)    Principles of Natural Justice ……………………………………………………………………………….3 (C)    Standard of Proof ………………………………………………………………………………………………3 (D) Disclaimer………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 (E)     Variation of insubstantial matters in Part B: Procedures …………………………………………3

  1. 6. Policy Content……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3

(A)    Eligibility to appeal …………………………………………………………………………………………..3 (B)    Grounds for appeal against a decision of the R&RSC…………………………………………….3 (C)    Grounds for appeal against a decision of the HREC ………………………………………………4 (D)    Grounds for complaint about the conduct of the HREC………………………………………….4

  1. Associated Documents ………………………………………………………………………………………………..4

(A)    Related External Documents ………………………………………………………………………………4 (B)    Related Internal Documents ……………………………………………………………………………….4

  1. Responsibility and Authority ………………………………………………………………………………………..4
  2. Approvals ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
  3. 10. Communications ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5

 

Part B: Procedures …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5

  1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5

(A)    Appeals or complaints made where the supporting material is Highly Confidential. ….5 (B)    Quality Manager as observer ………………………………………………………………………………5

  1. Procedures ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5

(A)    Appeal against a decision of the R&RSC ……………………………………………………………..5 (B)    Appeal against a decision of the HREC ……………………………………………………………….6 (C)    Complaints against the conduct of the HREC ……………………………………………………….7

 

 

 

PART A: POLICY

 

  1. Purpose and Scope

This policy will establish:

 

(a)     the grounds on and procedures by which a research higher degree candidate may appeal against a decision of the Research and Research Studies Committee:

  • not to award a research degree, or
  • not to allow resubmission of a thesis for re-examination, or
  • to terminate candidature; and,

 

(b)     the procedures for receiving, handling and seeking to resolve a complaint about the conduct or to appeal a decision of the ethics review body of the ACTh in reviewing research proposals from a higher degree candidate; and,

 

(c)     the principles to be applied in the determination of an appeal and the resolution of complaint.

 

Appeals under (a) are within the functions of the Academic Appeals Committee of the Academic Board.  Should the Academic Appeals Committee become involved in an appeal under this policy the rules specified in this policy will guide their involvement.

 

Complaints and Appeals under (b) are within the responsibilities of the Dean since the ethics review body of the ACTh is a Statutory Committee of Advice to the Dean.

 

Grievance matters arising from other academic and non-academic issues related to higher degree candidature, including matters relating to unsatisfactory supervision, inadequate facilities, disputes relating to candidate progress, are to be handled according to the dispute resolution procedures of the ACTh.   Students wishing to make an appeal on such matters are referred to the existing policies Dispute Resolution Policy for Domestic Students and Dispute Resolution Policy for International Students [See 7(A) below].

 

In respect of (a) this policy will apply to candidates enrolled in the degrees of DMin, MTh and ThD.

 

In respect of (b) this policy will apply to candidates enrolled in the degrees if MA(Th), MA(Min), MA(ChrStuds), DMin, MTh and ThD.

 

  1. Policy Level

Governance/Academic/Management/Operational: Governance/Academic/Management

 

  1. Background

This policy recognises the distinctive nature of the candidature of higher degree students and the gravity of the decisions that are the basis for appeals or complaints under this policy.  Consequently, it is appropriate for this policy to be independent of the other Dispute Resolution Policies of the ACTh that relate to Domestic and International students since these policies address matters of concern to coursework students unrelated to ethics approval of projects and research students on matters not peculiar to research candidature.

 

This policy is designed to ensure that:

  • principles of procedural fairness and natural justice are applied in the appeals process; and
  • persons comprising the various appeals panels are as independent as possible of the original person(s)/body making the original decision or making the recommendations leading to the original decision.

 

This policy takes account of the expectations of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human

Research in relation to the handling of complaints, particularly about the conduct and decisions of the

 

 

Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC).  The Guidelines in Chapter 5.6 Handling Complaints include the following sections:

 

5.6.4  Institutions  should  also  establish  procedures  for  receiving,  handling  and  seeking  to resolve complaints about the conduct of review bodies in reviewing research proposals.

 

5.6.5 Where these complaints cannot be readily resolved by communication between the complainant and the review body that is the subject of the complaint, complainants should have access to a person external to that review body to handle the complaint.

 

5.6.6  Institutions should identify a person or agency external to the institution to whom a person can take a complaint that has not been resolved by the processes referred to in paragraphs 5.6.1 to 5.6.5.

 

5.6.7 Institutions should publicise their complaints-handling procedures.

 

  1. Definitions

 

ACTh – Australian College of Theology

 

Appeals Committee – the Appeals Committee of the ACTh Academic Board

 

Appellant – the higher degree research candidate against whom the original decision was made. Associate Dean – the Associate Dean of the ACTh who has oversight of research studies matters Complainant – the higher degree candidate aggrieved by the conduct of the HREC

HREC – Human Research Ethics Committee of the ACTh – the statutory committee of the Dean with the responsibility for ethics review of research thesis and major project proposals

 

Higher Degree Research candidates – candidates enrolled in the MTh, DMin and ThD degrees

 

Higher Degree candidates – candidates enrolled in the MA(Th), MA(Min), MTh, DMin and ThD

degrees

 

Research Co-ordinator – the academic staff member in an affiliated college who has responsibility for oversight of research student training in the college.

 

R&RSC – the Research and Research Studies Committee of the ACTh Academic Board

 

  1. Principles

 

(A)    Principles underpinning this policy

 

A1.    Actions within the process will be undertaken in a timely manner and timelines for responses will be specified at each stage of the process

 

A2.    The process will be as simple as possible and easily accessible to appellants and complainants

 

A3.    The process will not victimise or discriminate against the appellant or complainant or any other involved party

 

A4.    As part of the process, reasons and full explanations will be given for decisions and actions taken

 

A5.    Appropriate records of the handling of an appeal or complaint under this policy will be kept for a minimum of 5 years and treated as confidential, with appropriate access available to involved parties

 

A6.    Components of the process within the ACTh or an affiliated college shall be at no cost to the appellant or complainant, apart from travelling expenses.

 

A7.    The appellant or complainant may withdraw the appeal or complaint at any stage in the process.

If the appeal or complaint is withdrawn, the matter will be deemed to be closed

 

A8.    The appellant or complainant shall be informed in detail of the outcome of the appeal or the resolution of the complaint.

 

 

(B)     Principles of Natural Justice

 

B1.    All staff involved in considering an appeal under this policy have a  duty to observe the principles of natural justice, which involve the following elements:

  • the right of the appellant to a fair hearing
  • the right of the appellant to attend hearings with a friend or support person, if desired, provided the person is not a practising solicitor or barrister
  • the opportunity for all parties involved to be heard
  • the appellant having full knowledge of the reasons for the original decision
  • the appellant or complainant not determining the outcome, but may be a party to it
  • the right to an independent, unbiased decision-maker
  • a final decision that is based solely on the relevant evidence with all submissions considered.

 

(C)    Standard of Proof

 

C1.    Consistent with the requirements of administrative law, the standard of proof for determining an appeal is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the decision-maker must be satisfied that the original decision being incorrect is more probable than not. This differs from the criminal law standard of proof which is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

(D)    Disclaimer

 

D1.    This Policy does not limit the student’s right to pursue alternative legal remedies.

 

(E)     Variation of insubstantial matters in Part B: Procedures

 

E1.    To take account of special circumstances concerning an Appellant or Complainant or other unusual  issues  that  may  arise  during  the  appeal  or  resolution  process,  the  Dean  has  the discretion to vary the time limits and other insubstantial matters of procedure in Part B: Procedures.

 

  1. Policy Content

 

(A)    Eligibility to appeal

 

A1.    Higher degree research candidates against whom one of the decisions in Section 1(a) has been made by the Research and Research Studies Committee may appeal against this decision.

 

A2.    Higher degree candidates who have a complaint about the conduct or a decision of the HREC in relation to their review of a research or major project proposal may seek resolution of their complaint or appeal against the decision.

 

(B)     Grounds for appeal against a decision of the R&RSC

 

B1.    Appeals based solely on the rejection of the academic assessment of work submitted for the award of the degree will not be permitted.

 

B2.    The grounds for appeal against a decision not to award a research degree or not to allow resubmission of a thesis for re-examination include:

  • procedural irregularities in the conduct of an examination;
  • significant evidence of circumstances substantially affecting the student’s performance of which the Research and Research Studies Committee was not aware.

 

B3.    The grounds for appeal against a decision to terminate candidature include:

  • demonstrably incorrect record keeping in the affiliate college and/or the ACTh
  • a justified difference of opinion arguing that progression to completion of candidature is satisfactory
  • documented experience of special circumstances impacting progress unreported during the period of candidature

 

 

(C)    Grounds for appeal against a decision of the HREC

 

C1.    Appeals based solely on the rejection of the academic assessment of the ethical content of a research or project proposal will not be permitted.

 

C2.    The grounds for appeal against a decision to not endorse the ethical content of a research or project proposal shall be procedural irregularities in the review of the ethical content.

 

(D)    Grounds for complaint about the conduct of the HREC

 

D1.    Given that there can be justifiable differences opinion as to whether a research or project proposal meets the requirements of the National Statement, students may complain about the process of the review of their research or project proposal.

 

  1. Associated Documents

 

(A)    Related External Documents

 

(B)     Related Internal Documents

  • Committees of the Academic Board Policy – (E) Academic Appeals Committee
  • Dispute Resolution Policy – Domestic Students
  • Dispute Resolution Policy – International Students
  • Duties of Candidates as found in the Rules for each research award

 

  1. Responsibility and Authority

Body/Position with authority to initially approve the policy and procedures and amend the policy:

 

         Board of Directors                  

 

Body/Position with delegated authority to amend the procedures consistent with the policy:

 

                  Dean                            

 

Body/Position(s) accountable for:

 

Responsibility Position
Development of the policy Quality Manager
Provision of advice in development of the policy Research & Research Studies

Committee

Distribution of the policy Quality Manager
Implementation of/Advice concerning the policy Associate Dean/

College Research Co-ordinators

Monitoring of and compliance with the policy Associate Dean
Evaluation and recommending amendment of the policy Quality Manager/Associate Dean/

Research & Research Studies

Committee

 

  1. Approvals

 

Document

Title:

Student Appeals Policy under Research

Degree Rules

Document

Number:

RAB0705/4/3

DEL0705/10/2

Approval

Authority:

Board of Delegates Approval Date: 21 May 2007
Resolution No: DEL 0705-024 Effective Date: 01 June 2007
Document

Administrator

Quality Manager Review Date: June 2013
Revision History

 

 

 

Authority Action Resolution No. Date
RAB Recommendation to BofD for approval RAB 0705-002 4 May 2007
DEL Approval of Policy and Procedures DEL 0705-024 21 May 2007
Quality

Manager

Insertion of Table of Contents and other

formatting as per current policy template

5 July 2007
 

 

Directors

Rename to “Policy on Student Appeals

under Higher Degree Rules” and revision of scope to include HREC actions and outcomes

 

 

DIR1106-18.1B

 

 

24 June 2011

 

  1. Communications

 

Date Recipient Purpose Mode
4 May 07 Members of

RAB

Notice of new format of policy after approval in

original format by RAB and requesting advice of improvements – 1 response

Email
25 May 07 Principals and

Registrars

Distribution of version of policy approved by BofDs

on 21 May 07

Email

 

 

PART B: PROCEDURES

 

  1. Introduction

 

(A)    Appeals or complaints made where the supporting material is Highly Confidential.

 

A1.    Where an appellant or complainant lodges an appeal or complaint and the supporting material is of a highly sensitive or personal nature, the appellant/complainant may submit that material in a sealed envelope clearly marked “confidential”. The Board of Directors, the Dean, the Appeal Review Panel, the Academic Appeals Committee and involved staff of the ACTh will treat the material with the utmost confidentiality.

 

(B)     Quality Manager as observer

 

B1.    The  Quality  Manager  (or  nominee)  shall  attend  meetings  of  any  Panel  and  Committee addressing matters under this policy as an observer.

 

  1. Procedures

 

(A)    Appeal against a decision of the R&RSC

 

A1.    The student must make the appeal in writing to the Chair of Academic Board through the Associate Dean within twenty (20) working days of the date on the written document from the ACTh advising the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The student must set out fully the grounds for appeal and provide documentary evidence in support of the appeal.  Within five (5) working days, the Associate Dean shall acknowledge receipt of the appeal.

 

A2.    Within ten (10) working days, the Chair of the Academic Board shall appoint an independent nominee and a Research Co-ordinator from an affiliated college other than the appellant’s to constitute an Appeal Review Panel to determine whether the appeal is  against a  decision covered by this policy and does accord with the grounds for appeal above, in which case the appeal will be heard.

 

A3.    Should the Panel determine the appeal should not be heard, the Panel shall so advise the Chair of Academic Board, including a full explanation for their determination, and the Associate Dean will  advise  the  appellant  within  five  (5)  working  days  of  the  determination  with  a  full explanation of the determination.

 

 

A4.    If the Appeal Review Panel determines the appeal should be heard, the appeal will be referred to the Academic Appeals Committee within ten (10) working days of the determination. The committee shall be composed by the Chair of the Academic Board in accord with the Committees of the Academic Board Policy and may include:

  • Two Research Co-ordinators from affiliated colleges other than the one from which the appeal originated and different to the Research Co-ordinator in A2.

 

A5.    The Academic Appeals Committee will consider documents relevant to the appeal including all material submitted by the appellant, and call before it any person deemed relevant. The Committee may consult the Chair of the R&RSC.  The committee will not consider academic judgements made as part of any examination process.  The appellant will be invited to present a case. The person assisting the student may provide the appellant with advice, but may not act as an advocate nor make direct comment to the meeting without permission of the Chair.

 

A6.    At the completion of the hearing everyone present, with the exception of the members of the Committee, will be excused from the hearing to allow the Appeals Committee to reach a decision on the appeal.

 

A7.    Within  five  (5)  working  days  of  the  meeting  of  the  Appeals  Committee,  the  Chair  will communicate in writing the decision, with reasons, through the Associate Dean to the Chair of the Academic Board and the Chair of the R&RSC.

 

A8.    Within five (5) working days of receiving the Committee’s decision, the Chair of the Academic Board will notify the appellant, through the Associate Dean, of the outcome of the appeal and provide the reasons for the decision.

 

A9.    The decision of the Appeals Committee is final and a confidential report will be provided to the next meeting of the Academic Board.

 

(B)     Appeal against a decision of the HREC

 

B1.    The student must make the appeal in writing to the Dean through the Associate Dean within twenty (20) working days of the date on the written document from the ACTh advising the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The student must set out fully the grounds for appeal and provide documentary evidence in support of the appeal.  Within five (5) working days, the Associate Dean shall acknowledge receipt of the appeal.

 

B2.    Within ten (10) working days, the Dean shall invite the Deputy Chair of the R&RSC to advise whether

 

(a)     the appeal is against a decision covered by this policy, and

 

(b)     the appeal accords with the grounds above, in which case the appeal will be heard.

B3.    Should the Deputy Chair of the R&RSC determine the appeal should not be heard, the Deputy Chair  of  the  R&RSC  shall  so  advise  the  Dean,  including  a  full  explanation  for  the determination, and the Associate Dean will advise the appellant within five (5) working days of the determination with a full explanation of the determination.

 

B4.    If the Deputy Chair of the R&RSC determines the appeal should be heard, the Dean shall appoint an independent expert on ethics in human research and invite the Chair of the R&RSC to constitute an Appeals Advisory Panel within ten (10) working days of the determination – the Chair of the R&RSC shall Chair the Panel.

 

B5.    The Appeals Advisory Panel will consider documents relevant to the appeal including all material submitted by the appellant, and call before it any person deemed relevant. The Panel will consult the Chair of the HREC.  The appellant will be invited to present a case. The person assisting the student may provide the appellant with advice, but may not act as an advocate nor make direct comment to the meeting without permission of the Chair.

 

B6.    At the completion of the hearing everyone present, with the exception of the members of the Panel, will be excused from the hearing to allow the Appeals Advisory Panel to reach a recommendation on the appeal.

 

 

B7.    Within five (5) working days of the meeting of the Appeals Advisory Panel, the Chair will communicate in writing their recommendation, with reasons, through the Associate Dean to the Dean.

 

B8.    Within five (5) working days of receiving the Committee’s decision, the Dean will notify the appellant of the outcome of the appeal and provide the reasons for the decision.

 

B9.    The Dean shall provide a confidential report of his decision to the next meeting of the HREC

and the R&RSC.

 

B10.  Should the appellant not be satisfied with the decision of the Dean, the appellant may request in writing to the Dean a review of the Dean’s decision by the Chair of the Sydney College of Divinity HREC, whose decision will be final.

 

(C)    Complaints against the conduct of the HREC

 

C1.    Students may lodge a complaint about the conduct of the HREC with the Dean through the Associate Dean.  The student must set out fully the grounds for the complaint and provide any documentary evidence supporting the complaint.  Within five (5) working days, the Associate Dean shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint.

 

C2.    Within five (5) working days of receipt of the complaint, the Associate Dean shall invite the Chair of the HREC to respond to the complaint in writing.   The Chair of the HREC shall respond within ten (10) working days.

 

C3.    The Associate Dean shall review the complaint and the response of the Chair of the HREC and consult the complainant with a view to resolving the matter informally.

 

C4.    Should the consultation of the Associate Dean with the complainant resolve the matter, the Associate Dean shall write to the complainant outlining the accepted resolution and closing the matter.

 

C5.    If  the  matter  is  not  closed  informally  the  Associate  Dean  shall  so  advise  the  Dean  and recommend to the Dean the appointment of an external expert on ethics in human research or other relevant expert to advise on possible ways to resolve the complaint.

 

C6.    When the Dean appoints an external expert, the expert shall consider the material, consult such persons as considered appropriate, including the complainant, and prepare advice to the Dean within ten (10) working days of appointment.

 

C7.    Within five (5) working days of receipt of the advice from the external expert the Dean shall consult the complainant and advise on the resolution of the complaint.

 

C8.    The Associate Dean shall report to the HREC on the resolution of the complaint.

 

C9.        Should the complainant not be satisfied with the resolution of the complaint by the Dean, the complainant may request in writing to the Dean a review of the Dean’s resolution by the Chair of the Sydney College of Divinity

 

 

고등 학위 규정에 따른 ACT 학생 상소

AUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF THEOLOGY

 

 

고등 학위 규정에 따른 학생 상소

 

 

승인 결정 Approval Resolution No.: DEL 0705-024     Date: 21 May 2007

승인 결정 수정 Revision Approval Resolution No.: DIR1106-18.1B        Date: 24 June 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART A: 정책

 

  1. 목적과 범주

이 정책은 확립될 것이다:

 

  • 리서치 분야 고등 학위 과정을 밟는 학생이 리서치와 리서치 연구 위원회(Research and Research Studies Committee)가 내린 결정에 대해 상소할 근거와 절차는 다음과 같다.:
  • 리서치 과목 학위 수여를 부여하지 않겠다는 결정, 또는
  • 논문 재 제출이나 재 시험을 허락하지 않겠다는 결정, 또는
  • 수강 자격을 종료하겠다는 결정, 그리고,

 

(b)     수행 (행위)에 대한 불만을 접수 받고 다루고 해결을 도모하는 절차, 또는, 고등 학위 과정을 밟는 학생이 제출한 연구 계획서를 검토함에 있어서, ACTh의 윤리 심의 기관의 결정에 상소하는 절차, 그리고  ,

 

(c)     상소에 대한 결정을 내리고 불평을 해소하는 데에 적용된 원칙들.

 

(a)에 해당하는 상소는 학부 (the Academic Board )의 학업 상소 위원회 (the Academic Appeals Committee )가 담당할 일이다. 학업 상소 위원회가 이 정책에 따른 상소에 연루되어 있는 경우에는, 이 정책에 구체적으로 명시된 규정에 따라 그 연루된 문제를 해결해 나갈 것이다.

 

  • 에 해당하는 불평과 상소는, ACTh의 윤리 심의 기관이 학장에게 조언을 주는 법정 위원회이므로, 학장이 담당하고 있다.
  • 상소와 불평 해소의 결정에 적용된 원칙들

 

불만족스러운 학업 지도, 부적절한 시설, 지원자의 진보에 관계된 분쟁을 포함한,  고등 학위 과정을 밟는 학생 (수강 자격)에 관계된, 학업적 또는 비학업적 사안으로부터 발생한 불평 문제는, ACTh의 분쟁 해결 절차에 따라 다루어지도록 되어 있다. 그러한 문제로 인해 상소하기를 원하는 학생들은 국내 거주 국민 을 위한 분쟁 해결 정책과 국제 유학생을 위한 분쟁 해결 정책을 참고하도록 한다. [아래의 7 (A) 를 참고할 것]

 

이 정책에서 (a) 관련 사항은 DMin 과정과 MTh 과정과 ThD 과정에 등록한 지원자들에게 적용된다..

 

이 정책에서 (b) 관련 사항은 MA(Th) 과정과  MA(Min) 과정과 MA(ChrStuds) 과정과 DMi 과정과 MTh 과정과 ThD 과정에 등록한 지원자들에게 적용된다.

 

  1. 정책 수준

자치(Governance) / 학업(Academic) / 관리(Management) / 운영(Operational): 자치 / 학업 / 관리

 

  1. 배경

이 정책은, 고등 학위 과정 수강의 두드러진 본질과, 이 정책 하에서의 상소나 불평 및 호소에 대한 근간이 되는 결정의 무거움을 인정한다. 그에 따라, 이 정책이, ACTh의 다른 분쟁 해결 정책과는 다른 독자성을 지니는 것은 바람직하다. ACTh의 다른 분쟁 해결 정책은, 학업 기획서의 윤리적 승인과는 관계 없는 또 리서치 학생들에게는 별 상관이 없는, 주어진 학업 과제를 따라가는 일에 관계된 사안을 거론하는, 거주 국민과 국제 유학생에게 관계된 정책이기 때문이다.

이 정책은 다음 사항을 보장하기 위해 만들어졌다.:

  • 절차상의 공평성과 자연 적정의 원칙이 상소 과정에 적용될 수 있도록 한다. 그리고
  • 다양한 상소 사연을 지닌 사람들이 가능한 한 독자적으로 원래의 한 개인으로서 / 일차 결정을 내리거나 일차 결정을 내리도록 제안한 원래의 개별 기관으로서 개별화될 수 있도록 한다.

 

이 정책은, 특히 수행과 결정에 대한 불만을 다루는 데에 관련하여, 인간 연구에 있어서 윤리 강령에 대한 국민 성명서  (National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research)가 기대하는 바를 인식하고 있다.

 

 

인간 연구 윤리 심의 위원회 Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC).  제 5.6 장, 다음의 사항을 포함한 불평 다루기 안내 지침서에는:

 

5.6.4 학교 기관은, 리서치 연구 계획서를 검토함에 있어서, 심의 기관의 수행에 대한 불평을 받아 들이고 다루고 해결책을 찾는 절차 방법을 확실히 세워 두어야 한다.

 

5.6.5 불평을 호소하는 자와 불평의 주체가 되는 심의 기관 사이의 의사 소통 만으로는 이러한 불평이 쉽사리 해소되지 않을 때에, 불평자는, 심의 기관 외부 인사에게 그 불평을 다루어 줄 것을 요청하도록 되어 있다..

 

5.6.6 해당 기관은, 5.6.1 에서 5.6.5. 에 명시된 바에 따른 절차에 의해서도 해결되지 않은 불평에 대해, 불평한 사람이 의뢰할 수 있는, 해당 기관 외부 인사나 업체를 파악해야 한다.

 

5.6.7 해당 기관은 기관의 불평 취급 절차를 공개해야 한다.

  1. 정의

 

ACTh – Australian College of Theology

 

Appeals Committee – the Appeals Committee of the ACTh Academic Board

ACTh 학부의 상소 위원회

 

Appellant 상소인 – 일차 결정에서 승인 받지 못한 고등 학위 리서치 과정을 밟는 학생.

Associate Dean 담당 학장 –리서치 과정의 사안을 감독하는 ACTh의 담당 학장 Complainant  – 인간 연구 윤리 심의 위원회의 수행에 대해 억울해 하는 고등 학위 과정을 밟는 학생

HREC –ACTh의 인간 연구 윤리 심의 위원회 – 리서치 논문과 주요 기획서의 윤리적 검토를 담당한 학장의 법정 위원회

 

Higher Degree Research candidates 고등 학위 리서치 과정 수강 학생 –MTh 과정과 DMin 과정과 ThD 학위 과정에 등록된 학생.

 

Higher Degree candidates 고등 학위 과정 학생 –MA(Th) 과정과 MA(Min) 과정과 MTh 과정과 DMin 과정과 ThD 학위 과정에 등록된 학생.

 

 

Research Co-ordinator 리서치 과정 담당자 – 학부에서 리서치 과정을 밟는 학생을 담당하는, 해당 학부의 학업 담당 교직원.

 

R&RSC  리서치와 리서치 연구 위원회– ACTh 학부의, 리서치와 리서치 연구 위원회 (the Research and Research Studies Committee)

 

  1. 원칙들

 

(A)    정책에 따르는 원칙들

 

A1.    각 단계 과정마다 응답하는 데에 정해진 기한 이내에, 적절한 시기에, 과정 내에서 조처를 취한다.

A2.    각 과정은 상소 신청자나 불평자가 따르기 쉽도록 가능한 한 단순 명료하게 진행한다.

A3.    과정이 진행되는 동안, 상소 신청자나 불평자나 어느 다른 관계자라도 피해를 입거나 차별을 받지 않도록 한다.

A4.    과정의 일부분으로서, 내려진 결정과 취해진 조처에 대한 이유를 밝혀야 하며, 전체적인 설명이 있어야 한다.

A5.    이 정책 하에서의 상소나 불평을 다룬 적절한 기록이, 최소 5년 동안 보관될 것이며, 관련자에게 적절한 공개를 하는 가운데, 비밀 문건으로 취급될 것이다.

A6.    ACTh 나 관련 학부 내에서 진행되는 과정에 대해서는 상소 신청자나 불평자에게는, 교통비 외에는 아무런 비용도 부과되지 않을 것이다.

A7.    상소 신청자나 불평자는 진행 단계 어느 과정에서든 상소나 불평을 철회할 수 있다.

 

만약 상소나 불평이 철회된다면, 그 사안은 종결된 것으로 처리될 것이다

 

A8.    상소 신청자나 불평자는 상소의 결과나 불평 해결에 대해 상세한 정보를 받게 될 것이다

 

(B)     자연 적정의 원칙 Priciples of Natural Justice

 

B1.    이 정책 하에서의 상소를 검토하는 일에 관계된 모든 교직원에게는, 자연 적정의 원칙을 준수할 의무가 있다. 이 원칙은 다음과 같은 요소를 포함한다:

  • 상소 신청자가 공정한 청취를 할 수 있는 권리
  • 상소 신청자가 변호사나 법정 변호인을 지정하지 않은 경우, 신청자가 원한다면, 친구나 도우미와 함께 청취에 참석할 권리
  • 모든 관계 당사자의 말을 들어 줄 기회 (관계자가 말할 기회)
  • 일차 결정이 내려진 이유를, 상소 신청자에게 완전히 알려 주기
  • 상소 신청자나 불평자가 결과를 결정 짓지는 않으나, 한 부분을 차지할 수도 있음
  • 독립적이고 편견이 없는 결정권자에 대한 권리
  • 모든 제출물을 고려한 끝에 관계된 증거에만 근거를 둔 최종 결정

 

(C)    증거의 기준

 

C1.    행정법의 요구 조건에 부합하는, 상소에 대한 결정을 내리는 증거 기준은 모든 가망성을 고려하는 데에 있다. 이 말은, 결정권자가, 원래 결정이 정확하지 않을 수 있는 가망성이 아예 없다기 보다는 있을 수도 있다는 증거를 찾아야 한다는 것을 의미한다. 이것은, 합리적인 의심의 여지가 없어야 한다는 범죄법의 경우와는 다르다.

 

(D)   기권

 

D1.    이 정책은, 학생이 다른 법적 수단을 찾을 권리를 제한하지 않는다.

(E)     [Part B: 절차] 있어서의 다양함과 비본질적인 사안

 

E1.    상소 신청자나 불평자에 대해서, 또는, 상소나 불평 해결 과정에서 발생할 수도 있는 다른 흔한 사안에 관련된 특수 상황을 파악해 내기 위해, 학장은, 기한을 변경하는 일이라든가 [Part B:절차]에 있어서의 다른 비본질적인 사안에 대한 재량권을 지니고 있다. .

 

  1. 정책 내용

 

(A)    상소할 있는 자격

 

A1.    고등 학위 리서치 과정을 밟는 학생 중에서, 리서치와 리서치 연구 위원회가 내린 1(a) 부분에 있어서 거부 결정을 받은 사람은 이 결정에 대해 상소할 수 있다.

A2.    고등 학위 과정을 밟는 학생 중에서, 자신의 연구 계획서나 주요 기획서 검토에 관련하여, 인간 연구 윤리 심의 위원회의 결정이나 수행에 대해 불만을 가진 사람은, 불만 해결을 요구하거나 그 결정에 대해 상소를 신청할 수 있다.

(B)     리서치와 리서치 연구 위원회의 결정에 대해 상소할 근거

 

B1.    리서치 학위 수여를 위해 제출된 학업 평가 거부에만 근거한 상소는 받아 들여지지 않을 것이다.

 

B2.    리서치 학위 수여 거부 결정에 대한 상소나, 논문 재 제출 및 재 시험을 허락받지 못한 이유에 근거한 상소 이외에 상소할 근거로는 다음과 같은 사항이 포함된다. :

  • 시험을 수행함에 있어서 절차상의 부당함 (불규칙성)
  • 리서치와 리서치 연구 위원회가 인식하지 못 하고 있던, 학생의 학업 수행에 현저한 영향을 끼친 상황에 대한 뚜렷한 증거

B3.    수강 자격 종료 결정에 대한 상소의 근거는 다음 사항을 포함한다.:

  • 해당 학부 그리고/또는 ACTh의 부정확한 기록 보관이 명백한 경우
  • 수강 학생의 과정 이수를 위한 진보가 만족스러운가에 대한 정당화된 견해 차이
  • 학업 과정을 밟는 동안 보고하지 않았던, 학업 진보에 영향을 끼친 특수 상황에 대한 문서화된 경험 기록

 

(C)    인간 연구 윤리 심의 위원회의 결정에 대한 상소 근거

 

C1.    연구 계획서나 기획서의 윤리적 내용의 학업적 평가 거부에만 근거한 상소는 받아 들여지지 않을 것이다.

 

C2.   연구 계획서나 기획서의 윤리적 내용을 지지하지 않겠다는 결정에 대한  상소는, 윤리적 내용 심의에 있어서 절차상의 부당함으로 분류될 것이다

 

(D)    인간 윤리 심의 위원회의 수행에 대한 불평의 근거

 

D1.    리서치 연구 계획서나 기획서가 국가 성명서의 요구 조건을 충족시키는가에 대한 견해 차이를 정당화 시킬 수 있는 경우라면, 학생은 자신의 연구 계획서나 기획서의 검토 (심의) 과정에 대해 불평을 제기할 수 있다.

  1. 관련 서류

 

(A)    외부 관련 서류

 

(B)     내부 관련 서류

  • 학부 위원회 정책 Committees of the Academic Board Policy – (E) 학업 상소 위원회 Academic Appeals Committee
  • 분쟁 해결 정책– 국내 거주민 학생
  • 분쟁 해결 정책– 국제 유학생
  • 개별 리서치 학위 수여 규정에 명시된 학생의 의무

 

  1. 책임과 권한

처음에 정책과 절차를 승인하고 정책을 수정할 권한을 지닌 기관 / 직위

 

         이사회 Board of Directors                  

 

정책과 절차를 승인하고 정책을 수정할 권한을 지닌 기관 / 직위

:

 

                  학장 Dean