The government of Israel established in 1958 the Council for Higher Education, according to a law promulgated the same year, which created the legal framework in which the institutions of higher education operate. In 1977 a committee of the Council-the Committee for Planning and Grants-was established. Upon its recommendations, the government participates in the budget of the institutions of higher education.
According to the said law, an academic institution is regarded as free to finance its academic and administrative matters within the framework of its budget. "Academic and Administrative Matters" include, among other things the appointment of the governing bodies of the institutions, the appointment of teachers and the conferring of their rank, the establishing of programs of instruction and research etc.
There are seven large, recognized academic institutions in Israel: the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the Technion, the University of Tel Aviv, Bar-Ilan University, Haifa University, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and the Weizmann Institute of Science. In the academic year 1983 there were 63,365 students in these institutions, 8,112 positions in instruction and research, and the technical and administrative staff numbered about 10,000. The regular budget for that year totaled about 57.3 million dollars.
The Office of the State Comptroller maintains a special unit for the audit of these institutions.
The State Comptroller's Office has taken upon itself the challenge of dealing with several questions involving academic freedom. Academic freedom limits the scope of state audit, which does not interfere with teaching or its content and other particular academic functions. In contrast to the question of employment of administrative employees, state audit does not require that the employment of academic lecturers be based on competitive arrangements. Neither does state audit interfere with academic considerations for the awarding of degrees, but it will investigate whether the degrees were awarded according to the rules set down by the institutions.
Nevertheless, state audit has inspected areas that could be defined as academic and has touched the borders of academic freedom. Following are some
sensitive subjects dealt with by the Israeli State Comptroller and published in his reports.
At Bar-Ilan University the audit based itself upon the rules and academic regulations set by the University: a quota of eight hours per week for lectures, seminars and lessons is set for each instructor-these are "session hours". The audit revealed that at this University the number of "session hours" for lecturers in one of the faculties was less than the quota set in the regulations. The University explained that other duties were required of these teachers besides "session hours".
It was pointed out that among the components of a teacher's work-instruction, research, academic administration and student guidance-it was possible to measure only "session hours" in a clear quantitative manner; therefore, it was natural that only in this area it was accepted that quotas be set. The audit pointed out that taking into account its financial situation, the university should strive towards clearer criteria. The university maintained that it was difficult to set definite criteria because of the multi-faceted nature of academia, but gave notice that the subject would be given fundamental examination.
At the Hebrew University in Jerusalem each faculty operates independently with respect to the teaching load. The Academic Committee of the University had recommended that the teaching load in the faculty of science be 8 to 10 session hours per week and in the faculty of arts 6 to 8 hours. For those teachers with additional duties, such as heads of departments, the teaching load is decreased. The audit revealed many instances where teachers had from 3 to 5 session hours per week in spite of the fact that they were not involved in academic administration. The university explained that because of the differences in the character of the work of the teachers in various faculties it was difficult to set uniform rules. The State Comptroller's Office insisted that only the actual teaching load can be examined quantitatively and considering the financial situation of the universities, the subject should be examined exhaustively and clear criteria established.
The State Comptroller's Office encounters a difficult problem when it examines the additional jobs of lecturers at the universities. There are no uniform rules in the universities with regard to additional work. State audit cannot determine the extent to which an additional job will impair a lecturer's work and if such an additional job is done at the expense of other work, such as doing research and fulfilling academic administrative duties.
Nevertheless, the .audit may indicate the fact that regular work of the lecturer in the performance of his basic job is impaired if he is engaged in a great deal of additional work; the universities themselves have set smaller teaching loads for those lecturers fulfilling academic administrative positions so as not to overburden them.
At Bar-Ilan University a committee recommended that salaries for additional appointments at the university beyond that of an additional half-time position should not be approved. The University Senate decided that a lecturer holding a full position may engage in additional teaching work at another institution to the extent that it does not go beyond a half-time position. Lecturers were requested to give notice of, and receive authorization for, any additional work outside the university. Not all teachers responded to this request. The audit revealed that among the teachers who were given authorization for additional work outside the university, there were those who were already working at more than one position at Bar-Ilan University itself. Two others were working at a full-time positions at Bar-Ilan and outside the university.
At the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, too, it was decided that a teacher needed authorization to engage in additional work of up to a half-time position. The State Comptroller's Office examined the application- of these rules, and found that there were teachers who were engaged in part-time additional work without the authorization of the university, and others who were engaged in additional work beyond the half-time position allowed.
The university informed the State Comptroller's Office that it would reprimand those teachers who took on additional work without permission. The State Comptroller's Office requested more efficient supervision in this matter.
At Haifa University there was no supervision at all in this area; only in the wake of the audit did the university institute supervision. In the follow-up inspection carried out by the State Comptroller's Office, the supervision was found defective and cases came to light of teachers teaching also in other institutions without having received authorization from the university.
A sensitive and important subject in the academic field is the appointment of the academic staff. State audit does not concern itself with the academic aspect of advancement in grade, but does inspect the advancement and appointment of lecturers according to procedures established by the universities.
The State Comptroller's Office found deviations from procedure in the advancement of junior staff members at the Hebrew University. The audit disclosed that the university did not follow its regulations with respect to the length of trial period. The audit also disclosed that lecturers had no right of appeal against decisions not to give them tenure at the university, sometimes after many years of service. The university informed the State Comptroller's Office that it would improve its appointment procedure and make it possible for the lecturer to appeal. In the audit it was also found that teachers were employed without official appointment and without the authorization of the personnel department. In 1977 the university decided to set up an Administrative Academic Committee to deal with these cases, but in the course of the audit, cases were still found of teachers employed without appointment and the personnel department had not brought them before the Committee for action.
At Haifa University, the audit revealed that lecturers from the Technion had joined the university; negotiations with them were conducted secretly and they were promised the rank of associate professor and the awarding of immediate tenure. The university took steps to raise their rank and award tenure, which deviated from the regulations of appointment and from its procedures; recommendations to the Appointments Committee were given orally, and not in writing; tenure was given immediately and not after a period of 3 years as required. The entire procedure took less than a month, as against 3 to 8 months that it generally takes.
Haifa University explained that it was interested in raising the level of the university's economic department, and therefore had offered four lecturers from the Technion better conditions than they had had at the Technion.
The State Comptroller's Office pointed out that the transfer of the lecturers was not fair and not proper from the public viewpoint and would have an adverse influence on the cooperation between two institutions located in the same city.
According to the law the Council of Higher Education may propose cooperation between academic institutions. The Committee ,of Planning and Grants considers the matter of cooperation as one of its functions for preventing duplication and for effecting savings.
The State Comptroller's Office is also of the opinion that cooperation between two institutions of higher education should be encouraged in order to save expenses.
In Haifa the two institutions of higher education differ in character: the Technion teaches mainly science and technology, and the University-humanities and social studies; both institutions teach mathematics, economics and statistics.
Haifa University is interested in cooperation with the Technion in all those academic areas in which there are similar teaching programs. A joint committee between the two institutions was set up with a representative of the Committee of Planning and Grants, but it did not reach any effective decisions. Every proposal made by one institution was rejected by the other. After a year, the chairman of the Committee informed the Committee of Planning and Grants orally, that the efforts for cooperation between the two institutions came to nought; the work of the committee ceased.
The State Comptroller pointed out, in his report on the audit of Haifa University, that the joint committee had not decided officially to halt its work, that it had not submitted a summary report in writing on the results of the deliberations and that the chairman had not been given authorization to continue contacts without convening the committee. The proposals rejected by the institutions had not been submitted to the governing bodies of the Technion and the university in order to achieve any final decision. The Technion and the university informed the State Comptroller's Office that they would bring the matter up for discussion in their governing bodies.
In his report on Haifa University the State Comptroller raised the subject of students accepted at the university without matriculation certificates. According to the rules of the Council of Higher Education, an institution may not accept students unless they are in possession of an Israeli matriculation certificate or its equivalent. Haifa University had fixed seven categories of candidates who even without matriculation certificates were permitted to study at the university under certain conditions. In the course of the audit it was revealed that the decision to accept such students was not publicized and that the university had no data as to the number of students without matriculation certificates accepted annually.
The unit for extramural studies of the university organized a course together with a large public institution. It was agreed, that a graduate of the course may be accepted as a regular student at the university, with recognition of the subjects he learned in the course-on the basis of his achievements in these subjects and in accordance with the decision of the department in which he is accepted-on condition that he passes the regular admission requirements. This proposal was not based on any authorized procedure.
The audit disclosed that 15 of the graduates that sought acceptance into regular studies had no matriculation certificates. Seven of these received low grades in the entrance examinations, that did not permit them to study in the department of their choice. In spite of this, the Admissions Committee decided to accept all these students with the permission of the Dean. The department also agreed to give recognition to the extramural studies, notwithstanding the fact that this matter was not decided upon in principle.
The State Comptroller's Office pointed out, that the manner of reaching a decision by the Admissions Committee in this instance deviated from the accepted procedures of the university, and demonstrated the need for a precise definition of the authority of the Committee and for laying down procedures for the acceptance of students.