Objectivity and impartiality guidance in the university
Updates:
- 3.6.2021 (link to ancillary activities and conflict of interests -page added)
- 6.8.2021 (reference to separate guidelines on disqualification in the tenure track removed)
All updates are accepted by legal services.
Impartial processing and decision-making, both required by a sense of justice, are among the key cornerstones of fair treatment and acceptable decision-making. Impartiality is also required by the principle of objectivity, which is one of the principles of good administration. The university must adhere to provisions on disqualification and conflicts of interest to ensure that its decisions and operations comply with the law. These provisions are more concrete manifestations of the objectivity principle.
Everyone is personally responsible for not processing (preparing or deciding) matters if one is disqualified. Disqualification is usually caused by a conflict of interest. In academic contexts, research collaboration and joint publications often give rise to bias. The Administrative Procedure Act lays the grounds for disqualification of public officials. Although the act refers to 'public officials', the fact that university staff are not in a public-service employment relationship does not matter.
The provisions on disqualification apply to all operations of the university. This includes recruitment processes, tenure track -procedure, admitting research funding and grants or other benefits, decision-making on academic affairs, procurement and contracts, and decision-making on research projects. In other words, disqualification provisions apply even outside the university’s public administrative function or official administrative decisions.
Use the grounds for disqualification to recognise when someone is disqualified
It is important to recognise and prevent situations where someone is disqualified. Disqualification is evaluated objectively, by outsiders, and a person’s own understanding of his or her ability to remain impartial regardless of the conflict of interest does not matter. Disqualification is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The following table lists the statutory grounds for disqualification and examples in a university context:
| According to the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003), a university employee is disqualified if: |
EXAMPLES IN A UNIVERSITY CONTEXT |
|
1) he or she or a person close to him or her* is a party to the matter in question (due to submitting an application, for example), or otherwise expected to experience a gain or loss from a decision on the matter (disqualified due to standing as a party) * A person close to the employee refers to: 1) the employee’s spouse, a child, grandchild, sibling, parent or grandparent of the employee, or a person who is otherwise particularly close to the employee, or the spouse of any of these; 2) a sibling of a parent of the employee or the spouse of such a sibling, a child of a sibling of the employee, or a former spouse of the employee; or 3) a child, grandchild, sibling, parent or grandparent of the employee’s spouse, the spouse of such a person, or a child of a sibling of the employee’s spouse. |
A party to an administrative matter is anyone who has a right, interest or obligation affected by the matter. • A university teacher may not grade the study attainments of his or her child or the child’s spouse. • A researcher may not participate in the processing of a research funding application that the researcher or a person close to him or her has submitted. • No one may make decisions concerning the recruitment or a right to pursue a degree of a person close to him or her. • A supervisor may not confirm the working hours reported by a person close to him or her. • No one may participate in decision-making that concerns the salary of, or arrange a workspace or other benefits to, a person close to him or her. |
| 2) he or she or a person close to him or her serves as counsel for or represents a party or a person who can be expected to experience a particular gain or loss from a decision on the matter (disqualified due to representation) |
• A person (or someone close to him or her) who represents a student or a researcher who has, for example, submitted an application cannot participate in the decision-making concerning the student or the researcher. • When a body with multiple members statutorily represents a group of people, the members of the group themselves are also permitted to express the group’s views and opinions. |
|
3) he or she or a person close to him or her can be expected to experience a particular gain or loss from a decision on the matter (disqualified due to interests) |
The gain or loss must be likely in the light of general experience. The gain or loss may be legal or economic, but it must be more than minor in nature. • A person may be disqualified from preparing a reorganisation of operations if the results would significantly affect his or her position or the position of another person close to him or her. • When a unit, research team or project is conducting a procurement, no decisions on the procurement may be made and no contracts may be signed by persons who have ties to the provider of services or goods. |
| 4) he or she is employed by, or, in relation to the matter under consideration, works on the commission of, a party or a person who can be expected to experience a particular gain or loss from a decision on the matter (disqualified due to service or commission relationship) |
• Being as a superior in employment relationship does not usually disqualify a person, but the matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis. • Loyalty that arises from working on commission will disqualify a person in situations where a connection exists between the matter being processed and the person’s work on commission. For example, in the case of cooperation agreements, a representative of the university cannot give commissions or make orders to partners with which he or she is affiliated. • Particular care is required in situations where a university employee has a second job outside the university. |
| 5) he or she or a person close to him or her is a member of the board of directors, board of administration or a comparable body, or is the managing director or holds an equivalent position, in a corporation, foundation, unincorporated state enterprise or public body which is a party or can be expected to experience a particular gain or loss from a decision on the matter (disqualified due to community relationship) |
The gain or loss in this case is considered to be particular, e.g. economically substantial or otherwise significant. When procurement processes are conducted, research and teaching cooperation agreements are signed or the university’s property is sold, steps must be taken to ensure that the persons who prepare and make decisions on these matters are not employed by the other party in any of the positions listed in point 5 above, as quoted from the Administrative Procedure Act. |
| 6) he or she or a person close to him or her is a member of the board of management or a comparable body of an agency or public body and the matter in question relates to the guidance or supervision of the agency or public body (disqualified due to responsibility of supervision or oversight) | |
| 7) confidence in his or her impartiality is endangered for another particular reason (disqualified on the grounds of the Administrative Procedure Act’s general clause on compromised impartiality) |
• Close friendships, family ties, public antagonism or strong public preconceptions may disqualify a person. • Academic collaboration such as a joint research project, joint publication or doctoral thesis supervision may disqualify a person. • Ordinary academic disagreement or working in the same work community are usually not grounds for disqualification. • Simple mistrust or discontent on someone’s part are not enough to disqualify someone. Instead, there must be a particular reason why trust is compromised. The reason must be perceivable to an external observer and of approximately equal weight to the other, separately specified grounds for disqualification listed above. |
Instructions
Report disqualification on your own initiative. Self-initiated reports are the most important way to detect and acknowledge situations where someone is disqualified: the person who is disqualified should state this and give an assessment of their interests and factors that may compromise their impartiality in the matter. If you know that an upcoming decision can result in financial or other gains or losses to you, a person close to you, your friends or communities to which you are linked, you have to exclude yourself from the decision-making or request that a decision be made on your potential disqualification. However, no one should be disqualified ‘just in case’ or to avoid difficult decisions, but always on a case-by-case basis.
In unclear situations, always discuss disqualification with your supervisor or bring it up at the meeting of the body in question (e.g. a committee or a council).
If you act as a presenting official or the chair of the body, it is a good practice to always ask the participants about disqualification and conflicts of interest – even during typical decision-making and decisions on assessors or experts. This ensures that the participants become aware of their links to the matter or to the involved persons when the matter is still in the preparation phase.
Reports on disqualification by others. If a plea of disqualification is filed by a party involved in the matter or by a third party, the plea must always be investigated and the question of disqualification must be addressed before the matter itself is processed.
Deciding on disqualification.
If a plea of disqualification is made against a rapporteur of a decision or a decision-maker, the rapporteur or the decision-maker must immediately decide whether they are disqualified, and this cannot be appealed against before the actual matter at hand has been decided on. If no grounds for disqualification are found, the same person may continue as the rapporteur or decision-maker regardless of the plea of disqualification
In the case of bodies with multiple members, such as an academic affairs committee, a degree programme committee or a board, the body shall decide on the disqualification of its members, its presenting officials and other persons who have the right to attend its meetings. The body will process the question of disqualification when prompted to do so by a plea or report made to it, or when a member or a presenting official requests it on their own initiative. The person who is claimed to be disqualified may not participate in the decision on disqualification. However, the body must hear the person before making a decision.
The decision on disqualification must be made before the actual matter at hand can be processed and discussed.
The decision on disqualification must be clearly entered in the meeting minutes. If someone leaves the meeting on their own initiative due to being disqualified, the meeting minutes should indicate disqualification as the reason why the person left the meeting. Should there be a need to verify the impartiality of the decision-making afterwards, checking the meeting minutes is one of the best ways to do this.
Prohibition to participate in the processing of the matter and decision-making. A disqualified person may not participate in decision-making or the preparation or processing of the decision (e.g. preliminary investigation, consulting of assessors and hearing). The disqualified person may not delegate their decision-making authority or appoint decision-makers or rapporteurs. Furthermore, the disqualified person may not attend the body’s meeting where the matter is processed or even listen to the discussion. The disqualified person may not serve as the presenting official of a decision, a decision-maker or bear the responsibility for implementing the decision. As taking meeting minutes or acting as the meeting secretary counts as participation in the processing of the matter, the disqualified person cannot take on these tasks. Preparations of a technical nature, such as the photocopying or mailing of documents, are the only tasks that may be acceptable.
The disqualified person may consider an urgent matter where the decision cannot be affected by his or her disqualification. In this case, urgency refers to a need to make a decision on the matter immediately, for example to enforce the legal protection and rights of the involved parties. However, even if the matter is urgent, the possibility to have a non-disqualified person to process the matter should be looked into. Situations that are urgent, as meant by the law, rarely occur at the university.
A substitute or a deputy member taking the place of the disqualified person. If someone is disqualified, a non-disqualified person must be immediately appointed to replace him or her. Questions about disqualification must be brought up proactively as early as possible because decision-making should not be delayed by the need to resolve the matter of disqualification. This will also ensure that conflicting interests will not affect the preparation process that precedes decision-making. Often a good way to prepare for situations where a decision-maker is disqualified is to appoint substitutes for them in advance. If a member of a body considers him- or herself to be disqualified, the proper practice is to discuss the matter with the chair, for example, before the body has a meeting and to consider summoning a substitute to attend the meeting or the part of the meeting where the matter that involves disqualification will be processed.
- Published:
- Updated: