學院院長的產生辦法，近日成為了校內的熱門話題，引起不少討論，大家都十分關心。我希望在這裡向各位報告一下最新的發展。
大學校董會對學院院長遴選制度的指示
切實有效的管治，對我們中文大學的長遠發展至為重要。我欣然告訴大家，大學校董會的「大學管治專責小組」剛於上月三十日向校董會提交報告書，建議大學應依據適當、透明和公開的遴選程序，在充分考慮教師的意見後，委任學院院長。大學校董會閱悉報告書，復清楚了解教務會已於去年十二月十三日的會議上，詳細討論這個議題，並以不記名方式投票，大比數支持改制建議。校董會於是提請大學校長依循這個大方向，就改制的具體安排諮詢校內教師，以提出實施方案，供校董會日後一併考慮。這是我下一步的任務，我將全力以赴。
遴選委任制度優勝之處
經過透明而公開的遴選程序去委任學院院長，不但有利各個學院的發展，更有助大學整體的管治和長遠發展。身為校長，我一直希望下放權責，改善分層管理，使各學院院長得以加強領導工作，並促進與院內同人的聯繫。建議中遴選委員會的過半數成員，將由有關學院的院務委員互選產生，能夠充分反映院內同人的意見。而實行遴選委任制後，院長會改為全職，一般任期為五年，任滿後經過評核，可再獲委任一次。全職院長能夠專注領導和管理工作，制訂並執行長遠策略，有助鞏固學院的發展。院長亦有更清晰的權責，可以自行調配更多資源，以應付學院各項需要。
新制度還有另外的優點，主要是能夠避免選舉制所引起的內部磨擦和分化，有助維繫院內同人的和睦關係，而最終獲委任的院長，將有較大的空間，去做其應做的決定，為學院以至大學的整體利益謀福祉。此外，新制度有助鼓勵校內校外更多能人志士，考慮擔任院長之職，可望為中大各學院的發展開創一番新氣象。
綜觀世界各地，許多民主國家（例如：美、加和澳洲）的知名大學，均實行院長遴選委任制，事實證明，皆行之有效，未嘗聽聞對學術自由有任何損害。近年其他國家和地區（例如：丹麥、德國和台灣等），亦開始轉用此制。二零零二年三月發表的《香港高等教育 — 大學教育資助委員會報告》（宋達能報告書）也指出委任學院院長的好處和必要，並以歐美著名學府為例，明確建議香港各大專院校推行學院院長委任制度。該報告書於二零零二年底已獲特區政府和教資會接納，成為本港的高等教育政策。目前，除了我們中文大學之外，所有獲教資會資助的本港院校皆實行院長委任制，足見其確有好處。
改制建議經長期醞釀和諮詢
學院院長選任制度的改革，經廣泛討論，如今進展長足，我深感欣慰。這是經年累月醞釀的成果。早於一九九七年，已有個別學院就遴選委任院長這個題目諮詢教師，或設立工作小組，深入研究。大學校董會為回應《宋達能報告書》的建議，在二零零二年五月成立大學管治專責小組，全面檢討管治架構，以確保管理模式切合二十一世紀的高等學府所需。我們於去年二月發表的《十年策略計劃》，更清楚表明大學對改善管治架構的決心。因此，我們特意邀請了四位國際知名大學的前任和現任校長，組成專家小組，為改革中大的管治架構提供意見。專家小組曾於去年三月到訪中大，與大學校董、主管人員、師生和校友代表會晤，聽取他們的意見，然後向大學管治專責小組提交建議。
去年十一月，校董會主席和我曾就學院院長選任制度的改革，分別與各位現任學院院長和系主任討論；大學隨後又發出文件，着各院長就有關建議諮詢院務委員和個別教師，收到很多回應。專責小組於是根據這些回應，修訂有關建議，並依照大學規程的法定程序，呈交教務會討論。十二月十三日舉行的教務會上，很多教務委員就會議文件（正文見附件）作詳盡分析和探討，表達了不同的意見；最終，教務會以八十四票贊成，十四票反對的大比數，通過原則上支持將文件所載建議，呈交大學校董會審議。校董會上周的指示，亦使我們長期的探討和諮詢，有了初步的總結，遴選委任制度也向前邁進了一大步。
新一輪諮詢已經開始
部分同事和同學關注改制後院長權力會否過分集中，這正是校董會着我就改制的具體安排諮商校內教師的原因之一。校董會最重視者有三。一是依照大學管治專責小組報告書所列的細節，制訂學院院長遴選委任制的實施指引，以確保有關學院教師的意見得到充分反映；其次是設計合適的機制，以評核學院院長的表現；第三是訂立程序，處理一切與學院管理有關的申訴。我們將參照海內外大學的做法，設置完善的評核與制衡機制，包括直接向校長提出申訴的途徑。
為了制訂院長遴選委任制的具體實施安排，早前我成立了「院長遴選委任制執行顧問委員會」，並邀請七位現任學院院長和法律學院主任擔任成員。顧問委員會已展開工作，就上述事項提出切實可行的方法。我會與眾委員進一步深入討論，同時把意見整理成具體建議，待農曆新年過後，再分別諮詢各個學院同人。誠盼屆時各位踴躍提出意見，協力制訂最妥善的安排，務求新制度能夠順利推行，促進學術和教研發展，協助中大騰飛精進，日新又新。我熱切期待你們的支持。
新春在邇，我預祝各位豬年進步，身體健康，生活愉快。
校長
劉遵義
二零零七年二月五日
附件
Dear teaching colleagues in all academic departments:
The issue of Faculty Deanship has been much discussed lately on campus and is our common concern. I would like to update you on the progress of our efforts to introduce a new system for searching for and appointing Faculty Deans.
Directive from the University Council
Effective governance is crucial to the long-term development of our University. At its meeting on 30 January the University Council received a report of the Council Task Force on University Governance, which recommends the change to a system of appointed Faculty Deanship that is predicated on a proper, transparent, and open search process involving significant input from the teachers of the Faculty concerned. The Council noted the report and clearly recognized that the recommendation had been thoroughly discussed by the Senate at its meeting on 13 December 2006, and that the Senate had via secret ballot voted by a large majority in support of the proposal. I am pleased to tell you that I have been asked by the Council to take this forward, and to consult teachers of the University on the detailed arrangements, in order to formulate specific proposals for further consideration by the Council. I shall earnestly apply myself to this task in the coming months.
The Merits of Appointed Deanship
The proposed system for appointing Deans is beneficial not only to the development of individual Faculties but also to the overall governance and long-term development of the entire University. As Vice-Chancellor, it is my intention to devolve more authority to the Deans, as they are much closer to the Departments. The appointed Deanship is a step towards decentralization of authority. The Task Force has suggested that the Search Committee shall include a majority of members elected by the related Faculty Board from amongst its own members, who can adequately reflect the interests of the teachers in the Faculty. Appointed Deans shall normally serve on a full-time basis. The term of service will normally be five years, which can be renewed once after a review. Such Deans will have a clearer identity as members of the University's senior management team, and can focus more on management roles and long-term strategic planning to enhance the Faculty's continuous growth. They will also have clearer responsibilities and accountability lines, and greater authority to allocate resources to priority programmes and projects in the Faculty.
A proper, transparent, and open search process also helps to avoid the possibility of negative sentiments and divisive campaigning that may occur in contested elections, and contribute to greater harmony within the Faculty. The appointed Dean will not therefore be subjected to conflict in making decisions, and can act in the best interest of the Faculty and the University. We also believe that such a system can attract more well-qualified candidates from both within and without the University to come forward.
It is obvious that academic freedom is unrelated to this method of selecting Deans, as evidenced by the experience of leading universities with similar appointment systems in major democracies such as the US, Canada, and Australia, not to mention the more recent moves to appointed Deanship in Danish, German and Taiwanese universities. Indeed the HigherEducation in Hong Kong – Report of the University Grants Committee (Sutherland Report) of March 2002 sets out the many merits of and the necessity for a system of appointed Deans, and recommends its adoption by local universities, citing many successful examples in prestigious universities in the US and Europe. The Sutherland Report was formally adopted by the UGC and the HKSAR Government in late 2002 as the roadmap for the development of higher education in Hong Kong. All UGC-funded institutions except CUHK now follow such a system, whereby Faculty Deans are appointed after a search process. We are duty-bound to take cognizance of its merits.
Years of Deliberation and Consultation
The change under consideration has been brewing for a long time. I am most gratified to see that much progress has been made after extensive discussion and consultation. Way back in 1997, individual Faculties started to sound out teachers on appointed Deanship; some set up working groups to explore its feasibility. In response to the governance and management issues raised by the Sutherland Report, the University Council appointed a Task Force on University Governance in May 2002 to review our governance structure, to ensure that it is fit for the purpose of a university of the 21 st century. In the University's Strategic Plan published last February, we reiterated our determination to review the University's governance as a matter of priority. In order that the University may benefit from the best practices in major universities worldwide, the Council invited a Panel of Experts comprising former or incumbent heads of four leading universities overseas to advise the Task Force on various matters related to the governance and management of CUHK. In March 2006, members of the Panel visited our campus and held discussions with Council members, University Officers, and representatives from staff, students and alumni. Their suggestions were then put to the Task Force for consideration.
Last November, the Council Chairman and I separately sought the views of Faculty Deans and Department Chairmen on the change to a system of appointed Deans as proposed by the Task Force. A briefing paper was subsequently issued, and Faculty Deans were asked to obtain feedback from members of their Faculty Boards and individual teachers. It was a very fruitful exercise; many comments were received. The Task Force revised their proposal according to comments received and, in accordance with statutory requirements, invited the University Senate to comment. At the meeting of our Senate on 13 December, after thorough and lengthy deliberation on the pros and cons of the proposal (see attached main paper), members voted by a large majority (84 for and 14 against) in support of the proposal, for submission to the Task Force's recommendations to the Council for consideration. The directive of the Council last week brought the protracted discussion and consultation process to a preliminary conclusion, and the proposed system of appointed Deanship has taken a big step forward.
A New Round of Consultation Under Way
Some colleagues and students have queried whether the appointed Deans may become too powerful. This in fact is one of the reasons why I have been asked by the Council to consult teachers further on the implementation details of the reform. The Council has three major concerns. First, operational guidelines for the search and appointment of Faculty Deans need to be drawn up, with special attention on the membership of the Search Committee, to ensure that the interests of faculty members are adequately protected. Second, a procedure and mechanism for the review of the Dean's performance has to be formulated. Third, proper procedures have to be devised to address complaints and grievances related to the management of individual Faculties. We shall take into account the current practices in established universities worldwide and develop proper procedures to assess performance and to provide checks and balances, including direct appeal to the Vice-Chancellor.
I have already appointed an Advisory Group on Implementing Appointed Deanship consisting of the current Deans of the seven Faculties and the Director of the School of Law. The group has already convened and we shall be looking at all the details of implementation. In-depth discussion is under way, and good progress has been made in achieving consensus on many issues. Concrete proposals will be put together as soon as possible for consultation with teachers in all Faculties after the Chinese New Year. I look forward eagerly to your input. With your full support, we shall arrive at a set of arrangements for the effective implementation of the new system, which is conducive to the pursuit of excellence in teaching and research, and to the continuous advancement of the University.
The Chinese New Year is only two weeks away. I wish you health, happiness and every success in your scholarly pursuits.
Lawrence J. Lau
Vice-Chancellor
5 February 2006