general framework for the handling of students ... · suggestions, complaints and claims quality,...

Agènciaper a la Qualitatdel Sistema Universitaride Catalunya

General Framework for the Handling of Students’Suggestions, Complaints and Claims

Quality, improving guarantee

Authors:Josep Vila (coordinator, Universitat de Girona), Ramon Corbella (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona),Joan Guàrdia (Universitat de Barcelona), Josep Navarro (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya), Anna Prades (AQU Catalunya), Josep Miquel Prats (Universitat Rovira i Virgili), Pere Torra (UniversitatPompeu Fabra).

© Agència per a la Qualitat del Sistema Universitari de CatalunyaVia Laietana, 28, 5a planta 08003 Barcelona

Edited by: Josep Turon y Eva CalatayudFirst edited: August 2004

Legal number: B-38.684-2004

This publication could be reproduced partial or total only if mentioned the published title, the Agència per a la Qualitat del Sistema Universitari de Catalunya as the editor, and the commission members whom elaborated this document.

General Framework for the Handling of Students’ Suggestions, Complaints and Claims | 3

■ Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. 5

AQU Catalunya: quality, improving guarantee ................................................................................. 7

Structure of the document ................................................................................................................ 9

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 111.1. Conflict as an opportunity for institutional improvement and progress ..................................... 111.2. The student as an active agent of claim processes ..................................................................12

2. Definition of terms ..................................................................................................................... 15

3. Normative framework for the handling of students’ suggestions, complaints and claims......... 17" Rights and duties of students. Section 1 ..................................................................................... 18" Admission and access. Section 2 ............................................................................................... 19" Enrolment. Section 3 .................................................................................................................. 20" Permanence. Section 4............................................................................................................... 21" Teaching. Section 5.................................................................................................................... 22" Assessment. Section 6............................................................................................................... 22" Transfer of credits. Section 7 ...................................................................................................... 23" Grants and aids. Section 8 ......................................................................................................... 23" Rules and regulations for the use of services and facilities. Section 9........................................... 24" Participation of students. Section 10........................................................................................... 25

4 | General Framework for the Handling of Students’ Suggestions, Complaints and Claims

4. Organisational framework for handling students’ suggestions, complaints and claims ....... 274.1. Organisational elements to considerate ................................................................................... 27

" Suggestions. Section 11....................................................................................................... 28" Complaints. Section 12 ........................................................................................................ 29" Claims. Section 13 ............................................................................................................... 29

4.2. Assessment elements of the organisational framework ........................................................... 30" Assessment elements of the organisational framework. Section 14 ....................................... 31

5. Information channels ................................................................................................................. 33

6. Best practices ............................................................................................................................ 35

7. University ombudsman’s offices ............................................................................................... 397.1. Background ........................................................................................................................... 397.2. Ombudsman’s offices ........................................................................................................... 40

8. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 43

■ Contents


■ Foreword

Foreword

As the European Ministers of Education have goneabout profiling the path of European convergence,the development of systems for quality assuranceat institutional level have acquired greater priority.Recently, in the Berlin Communiqué of 2003, theystated that the quality of higher education is thecentral idea around which revolves the creation ofthe European Space for Higher Education and thisissue has come to hold first place among themedium-term priorities.

The quality systems that are propounded by theEuropean convergence involve the availability, atthe universities, of regular systematic assessmentprocedures of the institutions or of theircomponents, and the existence of elements thatsimplify the detection and analysis of weak pointsin order to take flexible diligent action to correctthem. Within this framework, the attitudes andprocedures that are adopted by an institution inresponse to the suggestions, complaints or claimsof its students will be fundamental in advancingtowards a new quality-centred culture.

In recent years, Agència per a la Qualitat delSistema Universitari de Catalunya (AQUCatalunya) has developed a set of documents thataim to gather and systematise the best practices instrategic areas. Once these best practices havebeen implemented, they are to form part of thequality system of each institution. Thesedocuments or General Frameworks also aim toserve as a reference in the internal and externalassessment processes. To date, AQU Catalunyahas published six General Frameworks. Owing to

the acceptance of the General Frameworks by theuniversity community, some of them have beenrepublished while others are now in the process ofrevision, especially in the cases in which the firstedition appeared before the enactment of the newlegal framework.

In the development of a General Framework, AQUCatalunya seeks the complicity and participationof the persons who are real experts in the fieldconcerned. The process begins with the creationof a working group formed by the personsacquainted with the subject, who draft a basicdocument which is later enriched withcontributions from a second broader group ofpersons involved in and committed to universityquality. Lastly, the Drafting Committee adapts thecontributions to the document.

The General Framework that we present herecontributes a positive view addressed to improvinguniversity quality in a field of such capitalimportance as is the attention to students’suggestions, complaints and claims. As mentionedabove, it approaches conflict as an opportunity forinstitutional progress and improvement, whichmakes it extremely useful and interesting.

On behalf of AQU Catalunya I wish to express ourthanks, first of all, for the magnificent job carriedout by the Drafting Committee, which hassucceeding in lending a positive dynamic tone tothe document, and quite especially for the job ofthe committee’s co-ordinator, who has been thedriving force behind it. Secondly, AQU Catalunya


thanks all the persons who have answered ourrequest and made proposals on the initialdocument. Their contributions have helped toimprove it.

We hope that this General Framework will find anacceptance as warm as that shown to the previousones and that it will help to increase our students’participation in the improvement of the institutions’quality, and likewise that it may help to establish thespirit of co-operation which is so necessary tomake institutions advance towards change.

Gemma Rauret i Dalmau(Chief executive of AQU Catalunya)

■ Foreword


■ AQU Catalunya: quality, improving guarantee

AQU Catalunya:quality, improving guarantee

AQU Catalunya - Agència per a la Qualitat delSistema Universitari de Catalunya – or Agency forthe Quality of the University System of Catalonia –arose from the transformation brought about bythe Act on Universities of Catalonia (LUC) in theformer Consortium-Agency devoted to its task(1996).

Consequently, AQU Catalunya continues alongthe more than notable path of its predecessor, withbroader competences and attributions.

As from the enactment of the LUC, AQUCatalunya has become the foremost instrumentfor the quality of the university system in Catalonia.

AQU Catalunya is a benchmark agency that leadsinnovative projects generating the maximum valueadded for the quality of the Catalan universitysystem. It is an organisation that strives constantlyfor excellence. AQU Catalunya:

" Considers quality to be a way of doing thingsand working better. It is the first Europeanagency certified (since the year 2000) inaccordance with the standard ISO 9000.

" Has broad experience in institutionalassessment and in development and innovationof university quality systems. Since 1996, theyear in which the former Consortium AQUCatalunya was created, it has been workingactively in all these fields.

" Works for the good integration of the Catalanuniversity system in the European space ofhigher education and promotes co-operation onthe assessment and assurance of quality.

" Endeavours to assure the transparency,objectivity, impartiality and equanimity of theservices that it provides. AQU Catalunya worksin accordance with a code of ethics.

In short, AQU Catalunya advances with theuniversities of Catalonia and considers quality to bea method for improvement rather than a mereformality. University quality in Catalonia is spelledAQU Catalunya.


■ Structure of the document

Structure of the document

The content of the GENERAL FRAMEWORK FORHANDLING STUDENTS’ SUGGESTIONS,COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS is articulated in aseries of sections that seek to cover the aspectsnecessary to assure good attention tosuggestions, complaints and claims. The followingare the seven points in which this GeneralFramework is articulated:

" Introduction" Definition of terms" Normative framework" Organisation framework" Student information mechanisms" Best practices" University ombudsman’s offices


■ Introduction

1. Introduction

1.1. Conflict as an opportunity for institutional improvement and progress

The terms complaint, conflict, and claim form partof the set of words that we often use with asignificantly negative connotation. Each of thesewords suggests a situation which, in thejudgement of the interested person, should orcould be fairer, more harmonious and moresatisfactory.

First of all, within the framework of an organisation,these terms centre our attention on a possibledysfunction of the system, on something that is notworking well enough. After that, they give us cluesand question us about their possible correction.These are terms that have nothing to do with theverb to lament. We lament finalistic situationswithout possibility of change. To lament has amarkedly static connotation: "there is nothing leftfor us but to lament!". On the other hand, the verbsto complain or to claim have a pronounceddynamic character: the state of imperfection iscorrectable and surmountable. These are termsthat invite one to survey and analyse in depth theobject that they question. They demand that therespective assessment be made and, inaccordance with such assessment, they may entailthe change and improvement of the organisation.

It is precisely from this positive dynamic sense ofthe foregoing terms, as generators of opportunitiesfor qualitative progress, change and improvement,that we undertake the drafting of this GENERALFRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING STUDENTS’SUGGESTIONS, COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS.

Far from situating complaints and claims on sterileground or considering that their handling should beoverlooked or minimised for the sake of a falseefficiency, we think that conflicts exist to be faced,managed and elaborated to the benefit of thequalitative progress of the institution and to thebenefit of the welfare of the persons who make useof them or form part of them. Far from consideringcomplaints and claims as “hindrances” or“nuisances” in the everyday life of universities, westart out from the idea that an attitude of interestand openness is necessary in order correctly toidentify and handle these appraisals of students.

The present complexity of the university institutionsdemands that we lend the pertinent attention tothese inputs, which may contain direct informationon the functioning of important aspects. We shouldnot disdain the complaints, claims or suggestionscontributed by students. Quite to the contrary, weneed to consolidate a positive culture that will allowus to elaborate all the significant information thatthey often contain.

Consequently, our starting point is that theuniversities must favour the passage fromlamentation to proposal. The institutional focusmust banish finalistic, negative and sterilecommentary and develop further the democraticprocess of formulating, to the pertinent bodies, thesuggestions, complaints or claims that theinstitutional life entails. If we really wish to improveour level of excellence, we universities must opt for


■ Introduction

formative relationship held by the university. Thismeans, of course, that it is necessary to assure aquality attention and to avoid paternalism.

The content and form of the exercise of rightsto claim

The universities have the obligation to form citizensaware of their rights and duties, with the capacity toexercise them in the context of a democraticsociety, but this exercise of rights can only be aresponsible exercise. For this reason, with respectto their material content, the responsible exerciseof rights entails the acknowledgement, as anessential premise, of the fact that there are norights without duties and that neither the rightsthemselves nor their exercise may be absolute.With respect to its form, this exercise of theserights is not free of some minimum rules, the sameas in the case of any other citizen.

This minimum that must be demanded of asuggestion, complaint or claim, is that it mustinclude a motivation, that is to say, a reasoned lineof argument of its grounds, something that is fullylinked to the character of the universities as spacesof intellectual reflection. The fact that a motivationis required in claims is, we insist, a formalrequirement, something that should not beconfused with the firmness or severity of that whichis claimed: a materially rigorous claim or complaintis perfectly licit as long as it presents a sufficientrational foundation.

The absence of motivation may condition the typeof response that the universities may make.Accordingly, a well motivated claim must be

a positive “culture” that will interpret conflict as anopportunity for institutional improvement andprogress, something that demands thecommitment of all the university collectivities,especially including the teaching staff, theacademic managers and the administration andservices staff.

Conflicts form part of the context. One may chooseto ignore them or to deal with them. As a result ofthis positioning, the words suggestion, complaintand claim will occupy either a marginal hiddenspace or they will be endowed with themechanisms and resources necessary to be takeninto consideration.

1.2. The student as an active agent of claim processes

The culture of participation in a democraticsociety

As agents of claim processes, students mustmaintain an active role derived from theseprocesses in relation to the university. The selfsameact of formulating suggestions, complaints andclaims forms part of a participative culture that, asmentioned in the previous paragraph, must bevalued as an opportunity for improvement of theuniversity institution. It should not be forgotten thatthe various points of attention to students that areavailable at the universities form, in practice, formany students, the first public office with whichthey establish a relationship as interested persons.Consequently, the universities should see that thetreatment that they give to students is exemplary,and this is all the more true if we consider the


■ Introduction

handled scrupulously by the university, which mustgive it a detailed point-by-point answer. On theother hand, a poorly or barely reasoned claimmakes this process more difficult and it mayreceive a more general and probably lesscommitted response from the institution.

Another formal aspect that it would be hardlynecessary to mention is the polish of the languageused by the author of the suggestion, complaint orclaim. Quite simply, it is taken for granted that aminimum correctness of tone and language shallbe used to express the suggestion, complaint orclaim.


■ Definition of terms

2. Definition of terms

Before actually beginning to develop this GeneralFramework, it is necessary to specify the meaningthat we give to the words that are the object ofstudy: suggestion, complaint and claim.

" Suggestion

This is a proposal for improvement that isaddressed to the consideration of some personor instance so that it may be taken into accountor be incorporated into the ordinary functioning.

The motivation of a suggestion is not based on aharm of rights but on an improvement of thesystem. In this respect, it should be pointed outthat the fact that an institution receives asignificant number of suggestions is a positivesignal: it indicates that its members feel that theyare participants in the institution and that theinstitution has succeeded in establishing acertain participative and improvement-focusedculture.

Suggestions may arise within a very broad rangeof situations and activities. Within the universityframework, suggestions may refer to aspects ofpositive coexistence, teaching, research,expansion, infrastructures, services,relationship with the surroundings, etc.

The interested party or submitter of thesuggestion may be an individual person or acollectivity.

The attention that an institution lends tosuggestions and the treatment that it gives themare not regulated by general rules, and theyalways depend on free choice and on the carethat the selfsame institution may wish to grantthem.

" Complaint

This is an expression of discontent that is usuallynot conveyed in a formal way.

In the strict sense, when the interested partyexpresses a complaint, he or she does notalways expect redress.

The motivation of a complaint is not basedrigorously on a harm of rights, but rather on acertain negative perception of a situation, oftreatment received or of someone’s conduct.

The same as in the case of suggestions,complaints may arise within a very broad rangeof situations and activities (teaching, research,administrative aspects, treatment received,infrastructures, positive coexistence, services,relationship with the surroundings, etc.).


■ Definition of terms

Claims are formulated in an individual capacity.Their processing is subject to formal proceduresframed in official regulatory schemes, codes,guiding documents, etc. The resolution of a claimmay generate jurisprudence.

Lastly, we wish to point out that, within the sphereof universities, we consider that suggestions,complaints and claims form a set of inputs, thequalitative and quantitative analysis of which maybe of interest for the satisfactory development ofthe institutions: user satisfaction studies, detectionof weak points or improvable aspects, etc.

In accordance with these considerations,throughout this document we will speak ofstudents’ suggestions, complaints and claimsrelating to the full range of matters existing withinthe university framework: academic sphere,administrative sphere, positive-coexistencesphere, and the sphere of infrastructures andservices.

A complaint that is disregarded or poorlyhandled, in addition to generatingdissatisfaction, may become a claim.Consequently, it is important for there to bemechanisms of detection and handling ofcomplaints in order to be able to manage them,the better to serve the users of the institutionand to avoid, in the long run, the transformationof complaints into claims.

The interested party or submitter may be anindividual person or a collectivity. Theprocedures for attending to complaints must beflexible and open. The resolution of a complaintdoes not usually generate jurisprudence.

" Claim

This is a complaint that is conveyed formally tothe pertinent instance to request the redress of asituation that the interested party considersunfair or harmful to his or her interests. Withinthe framework of an institution, a claim entailsthat the administered person appeals against adecision made by the Administration.Consequently, the person who submits a claimis making a request for review.

The motivation of a claim is based on thedisagreement of the interested party with a priorresolution or decision. Therefore, the petitioneris aware of a harm of rights.


■ Normative framework for the handling of students’ suggestions, complaints and claims

3. Normative framework for the handling of students’ suggestions, complaints and claims

The attention to and respective management ofsuggestions, complaints and claims require anormative framework as a base or platform fromwhich to assess the content or foresee the possibleactions that will be derived from it: how is a claim onassessment to be resolved if no specific rules areavailable?, how is a complaint on a request forchange of enrolment to be resolved without rulesthat determine the required conditions?

Under no circumstances, however, do we wish toreduce this attention to a mere mechanicalnormative analysis. The management of theseaspects will often evidence legislative gaps,dysfunctions between the will of the legislators andthe real effects caused by a rule, new situationsthat do not allow recourse to be taken to thepreceding ones, etc. In short, it elicit conflicts forwhich the approach and solution go beyond amere regulatory consultation.

Despite this, in order to avoid managementdifficulties and a positioning on a high level ofarbitrariness and disconcert, it is indispensable forthere to be a minimum normative framework.

In general, the universities are subject to a twofoldnormative framework:

a) Regulation of generalist character throughCommunity directives, and laws or decrees thatregulate the activity of the Public Administrationin general or of the university in particular:European directives, the Act on AdministrativeProcedure, the Organic Law on Universities, theCatalan Act on Universities, common generalguidelines for the establishment of curricula,common general guidelines for each degree, theDecree on the Issuance of Degrees, the Decreeon the Third Cycle, the European Space forHigher Education, etc.

This is a type of rules that regulate the generalactions of the institution and affect the universitysystem as a whole, but remain distant from theuniversity’s day-to-day activity and, above all,from the relations between the university and itsmain users, the students.

b) A set of rules that emanate from theselfsame university in the form of own rulescreated by the governing bodies, the function ofwhich is to regulate the internal relations withinthe institution and the relations of the institutionwith users, whilst establishing clear transparentcriteria and objective rules of action: bylaws,permanence system rules, and rules ofvalidation, recognition of free-choice credits,enrolment, assessment criteria, etc.



It is from this perspective that we consider itnecessary for the university institutions to havetheir own rules or adaptations of more general rulesto their daily reality.

Accordingly, in this section we wish to present a listof minimum rules that the universities mustpossess, under one name or another, in order toundertake the management of suggestions,complaints and claims.

Below, what we call the normative framework isstructured in ten blocks, which range from themost general aspects, such as the regulation ofrights and duties, to more specific aspects, suchas the content to be presented by ownprogrammes of grants and aids. That is to say, theycover the three major areas of university activity:university services and benefits, administrativeactions, and teaching. We have divided each of theblocks into two sections: one on specificcontents, in which we have enumerated theminimum aspects which we consider that alluniversities should have under regulation, andanother section on characteristics or remarks, inwhich some recommendations are made on thedevelopment of the specific contents.

(1) Sections 36, 37 and 38 of the LUC.

Rights and duties of students (1) Section 1

Specific contents that should be included

" Basic rights" Basic duties

Characteristics / Remarks

" Select and include the rights and duties that areconsidered basic and are already explicitlyprovided in the rules with which each universityhas endowed itself (bylaws, regulations, etc.).

" Balance rights and duties." Do not seek exhaustiveness: the attempt to

concretise all the rights and all the duties couldbecome an endless endeavour.

" Prioritise the rights and duties that, beyond theirphilosophical aspects, have a clear projection inthe life of the institution.



Admission and access Section 2

Specific contents/cases that should be included

" Admission of official, own and university extension educations" Transfer of academic record" Students from mobility programmes" Visiting students


With respect to content:

Explain the criteria of admission and selection,which shall have the following attributes:" They shall be clear, transparent and explicit (not

tacit). Admission cannot be denied for reasonsnot initially stated.

" They must be objective. It is not necessary forthem to be quantitative; there may be qualitativecriteria, although it is recommendable that theyshould not be exclusively qualitative (forexample, interviews).

" They should be specific and concrete. Instead ofusing general and ambiguous expressions suchas “he or she does not meet the requirements”or “he or she does not fulfil the rules”, concreteprecise expressions should be used, such as“he or she does not have the required accessdegree (licenciature)” or “he or she has notaccredited completion of the 1st cycle”.

With respect to form

" Systems used to notify admission or non-admission: publication or personalcommunication.

" Basic procedure (terms, etc.)" Existence of the possibility of claim and

statement of how, when and where to exerciseit.



Enrolment Section 3

Enrolment application and modifications

Specific contents that it should include

" Enrolment procedure" Financial system (2): regulation of prices, surcharges, method of payment, rebates, fractioned payments,

conditionality of grants, etc." Academic system: enrolment obligations (enrolable minimum and maximum - if any -, incompatibilities, etc.)

(2) The aspects which the university is not responsible for regulating (decree on prices, announcement ofgrants of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, etc.) entail the obligation on the part of the university toprovide the pertinent information.


The procedure shall specify the terms, resources, etc.

On the financial system:

" State explicitly the consequences of non-payment.

" State explicitly the obligatory or voluntarycharacter of other services or items (student’sguide, sports, agenda, school insurance, etc.).

On the academic system:

" State the enrolment obligations (enrolableminimum and maximum - if any -, incompatibilities,etc.).

" Establish an objective system of award ofsubjects (optional and free-choice) and ofgroups that will allow changes. It isrecommendable that the award criteria shouldbe based on academic aspects (academicrecord, course in which the student is found,number of credits held, etc.).

" State the rights derived directly from enrolment(see Section 1).



Cancellation of enrolment


" Enrolment cancellation procedure" Financial system" Academic system


" The procedure shall specify the terms,resources, etc.

" Financial system: it should be stated whether itentails the refund of the enrolment payment ornot. In the case in which such refund is entailed,the refund hypotheses and the part to berefunded should be stated

" Academic system: state the academicconsequences, especially with respect topermanence (normal, as if enrolment had notbeen carried out, etc.)

Enrolment Section 3 (continuation) Permanence Section 4


" Scope of application (when does it apply)" Minimum and maximum limits of enrolment" Performance criteria" Progression criteria" Mechanism for consideration of exceptions


It should be taken into consideration that the ruleson permanence were characterised at first by agreat rigidity, since the universities had the problemof massification, but today there are clear signs ofless stringency in this area and of a notableflexibilisation of criteria. Accordingly, it is necessaryto provide a clarification of exceptionality in order toavoid arbitrariness



Teaching Section 5


" Programmes" Academic calendar" Tutoring timetable" Non-presencial teaching" Teaching of practical activities" Field activities" External training placements" Assessment of teaching staff


Within the sphere of teaching, the most specificaspects that must be considered revolve aroundthe activities that the students carry out.Consequently, the concrete rules must be set atthe highest level of institutional commitment inorder to assure the importance of these aspects. Itis therefore necessary to establish references forthis section in:" The university bylaws." The specific programmes for improvement of

teaching." The rules that assure rights and set the duties of

the students with respect to the teaching thatthey are to receive.

Assessment Section 6


" General criteria of the university. Rights andobligations in this process

" Calendar" System and algorithm for grading of the subject" Teacher review dates" Rules for review by the department or teaching

centre" Criteria to follow in the event of fraudulent

actions" Custody of the documents that are the object of

assessments" Weighting of the academic records and

calculation of the graduation grade


The university’s assessment model must beexplained and known.

Throughout the process, it should be recalled thatthe responsibility for assessment is dividedbetween the departments and the teachingcentres. This division of responsibilities should notentail an inadequate definition of attributions orlead to the inhibition of any of the parties involved.



Transfer of credits Section 7


" Validations" Adaptations" Recognition of free-choice credits and credits

for activities of academic interest or non-regulated activities within the sphere of theuniversity

" Recognition of credits linked to mobilityprogrammes


In any of the modalities of transfer of credits, it isimportant to establish agile resolution processes" In order to avoid arbitrary actions and

comparative grievances in the recognition offree-choice credits, it is advisable to define in aclosed sure way the set of training activities thatwill receive this recognition.

" Mobility programmes require a very carefultreatment, with a prior commitment betweenthe centre and the student.

Grants and aids Section 8

Own grant programmes of the university


" Public announcement of the grant programme" Application and award times" Object of the grant, aid" What is demanded in exchange from the

student" Requirements for the award

• Profile of the grant• Financial requirements• Academic requirements

" Scaling formula for records• Other aspects (distance of trips, etc.)

" Method of receiving the aid" Causes of incompatibility" Renewal criteria, if applicable" Competent body to award the grant, aid" Publication of the decision


In all cases, the aspects relating to the followingitems should be clearly defined:" Holiday periods: some services are open, but

these are non-academic periods." The right to be absent in order to attend training

placements or examinations, for illness, forinstitutional representation, during strikeperiods, etc.: must these absences be madeup?



" What is the dependence with respect to theperson in charge of the destination service?

" Follow-up of the degree of fulfilment: is itnecessary for there to be a final report from theperson in charge?

" If what is demanded in exchange ceases to beprovided, what are the effects on future grantprogrammes, etc.?

External grant programmes managed throughthe university (general-system grants, mobilitygrants, etc.)


" Publicity of the grant programme" Publicity of the deadlines and method of

application" Time for submission of pertinent documents" Permanent information on submitted applications" Notification of rejections" Information on the possibility of appeal" Effects of rejection on the conditional enrolment of

the grant applicant" Time for claim of the enrolment fee


In these external grant programmes, the role thatthe university may play in counselling and guidingthe students is very important.

Rules and regulations for the use of services and facilities Section 9


" IT media" Library" Sports facilities" Reprography service" Use of student premises" Restaurant and café services" Safety and conditions of the facilities for

teaching activities" Use of material" Information and attention services" Secretariats of centres" Administrative services " Use of common facilities of the university

community (classrooms, assembly rooms, etc.)


All these options are matters that are connectedwith the everyday aspects of the students’ activity.For this reason, they basically involve a set ofelements that should be regulated in the sense ofestablishing the mechanisms of access to eachone, and of defining the consequences that maybe derived from the inadequate use of any of theoptions that are mentioned here.

Grants and aids Section 8 (continuation)



Participation of students Section 10


" Fulfilment of the normative framework" Rules and regulations of student associations" Electoral rules for students and their

representatives" Rules for budgetary distribution" Specific rules of the centres


The aim is to establish, on the basis of the generalrules, the development of provisions that willregulate the mechanisms of representation of thestudents and their action in the governance of theuniversity, and that will foster the participation ofthe students in the life of the university. Theregulation of the representation of the studentsshould provide for the following, as a minimum:1. University teachers’ council2. Governing Council3. Faculty or school boards4. Department councils5. Student collegiate bodies (Student Council,

student plenary assemblies, etc.)


■ Organisational framework to handle students’ suggestions, complaints and claims

4. Organisational framework to handle students’ suggestions, complaints and claims

4.1. Organisational elements to considerate

It is important to point out that it is very difficult toestablish a single management mechanism in viewof the diversity and complexity of the universities ofthe system. It should be understood that this is aminimum proposal so it does not pretend to dealexhaustively with the various realities that mayexist.

Consequently, in this section the aim is not todescribe the organisation with which a university isto be endowed, but to point out the elements that,independently of the adopted organisationalformula, shall indispensably be considered for thethree typologies that we have distinguished:suggestion, complaint or claim. Coherent with thespirit of this document, we adopt the standpoint ofthe students. As a result of the students’ active rolein the claim processes, their needs are whatdetermine the organisation that a university is tohave, and not the opposite. For example, auniversity that has centres dispersed in relativelydistant areas would do well to assure the existenceof several attention and reception points, even ifthey maintain an institutional unity.

One aspect on which we do not wish to state anopinion is the circumstance of whether theattention points should be specialised or, on theother hand, whether they should coincide with the

student attention points for other aspects orformalities (secretariats, academic management,etc.). We consider that all positions are equallyjustifiable (or criticisable) and may prove to beequally efficient; the important thing is to assess theresults obtained with them.

As may be seen, there are common elements thatcorrespond to the three methods of exercisingrights that we have discussed. Firstly, among thesecommon elements, all the universities must haveone or more reception points for suggestions,complaints and claims. This is not as obvious as itcould at first seem. Neither is the merecircumstance of the existence of a reception pointsufficient; in addition, it is necessary to promote itsacquaintance among students, which also admitsdifferent approaches at each university.Consequently, it will be necessary to assess thedissemination, information or publicity that auniversity provides on this entry point ofsuggestions, complaints or claims (see Section 5on information channels).

A second element, which is obligatory forsuggestions and optional (but highlyrecommendable) for complaints and claims, is thevoucher of reception. If the university appreciatesand, just as has been set out in previous sections,



even has the duty to promote the actions ofsuggestion, complaint or claim, it must take theopportunity, with respect to the person who haseffectively exercised one of these actions, to lend itfull attention. Moreover, the students who suggest,complain or claim in a suitable way should receivethe gratitude of the institution for the merecircumstance of addressing it to exercise theirrights in a responsible way. It is also appropriate tooffer ideas on the paths that may be followed bythe action that the students have initiated(possibilities of reply, conveyance of the matterinvolved to the persons in charge, etc.).

Suggestions Section 11

Considerations

This type of expression of ideas should beunderstood as an option which does not require aspecific reply although as a minimum the voucherof reception should be considered a standard replyformula

Basic organisational schema

1. Reception point of the suggestion2. Voucher of reception3. Internal mechanism of its conveyance to the unit

or service that is to take charge of its content4. Conveyance, if applicable, to other internal

instances in case that the suggestion may leadto other processes



Complaints Section 12

Considerations

This expression of discontent does not imply theexistence of a prior decision


1. Reception point of the complaint2. Possibility of voucher of reception3. Internal mechanism of its conveyance to the unit

or service that is to take charge of its contentand reply

4. Analysis of the complaint and notification of theassessment of the complaint to the interestedperson, stating, if applicable, the subsequentprocedures of appeal

Claims Section 13

Considerations

This expression of discontent implies the review ofa prior decision, in accordance with the definedlegal procedures


1. Reception point of the claim and/or appeal2. Possibility of voucher of reception3. Internal mechanism of its conveyance to the unit

or service that is to take charge of its contentand resolution

4. Administrative and legal analysis of the content,motivated notification of the decision made, andconveyance of this decision to the interestedperson, stating, if applicable, the subsequentlegal procedures of appeal



4.2. Assessment elements of the organisational framework

As is usual in these cases, the followingparagraphs do not seek to be exhaustive withrespect to all the possible indicators for assessingthe functioning of the sphere with which we aredealing. Quite simply, the following commentsshould be considered an initial or minimumapproximation that shall be completed with thespecific reality that is to be analysed and thedelimited assessment level. Of course, inaccordance with this criterion, it is not the same toanalyse these processes in a faculty or school as ina series of faculties or schools; or in any case, theassessment unit delimited to an education is notexactly the same for an undergraduate educationas for a post-graduate education. Consequently, itshould be reiterated that the following are minimumproposals.

Moreover, the matter connected with assessmentspheres and topics is not irrelevant here, since itwill define the points of attention that should beconsidered in order to carry out a sufficientlycomplete assessment. A suggestion, complaint orclaim process carried out by a student entails, as aminimum, the existence of four reference pointsthat should be considered. Quite briefly, they maybe defined in the following way:

1. Firstly, it is indispensable to identify the point orpoints where a suggestion, complaint or claimmay be lodged.

2. An analysis must be made of the time requiredto send the voucher of reception.

3. The internal procedures of the circuits forconveyance of the suggestions, complaints orclaims to the respective instance must bedefined clearly.

4. Lastly, it is necessary to analyse the resolution ofthe whole process, with special attention to thetime elapsed and to the effects that thisresolution may entail for the university.

Bearing in mind this simple little managementmodel, consideration must be given to the variouspossibilities that may arise in each of thesespheres; consequently, one must be ready todefine distinct specific topics in each case that willallow evidence to be obtained on each of the fourinitial points. We thus find that one minimumpossibility to be considered is the one entailing thelowest possible organisational cost and themaximum yield of critical information. The followingchart shows an initial proposal of the topics to beconsidered.



Reception point

1. Acquaintance with the personal attention points2. Existence of computerised points3. Action and access to the ombudsman4. Role of the student associations and delegations5. Existence of special instances

Time to send the possible voucher of reception

1. Written reply2. Telematic reply3. Number of suggestions, complaints or appeals received4. Analysis of their typology (examinations, teaching, services, etc.)

Internal processing and management circuits

1. Existence of previously defined internal circuits2. Functioning of the distribution of files in the event that there is a single reception point

Generation of the reply and internal impact

1. Existence of legal support for the preparation of the reply, if appropriate2. Internal mechanisms for assessment of the situation considered3. Time elapsed between the reception of the complaint or appeal and its reply (in making this calculation, one

should discount the time devoted to administrative and/or legal procedures foreign to the university itself)

Assessment elements of the organisational framework Section 14



Lastly, it is necessary to identify a series of specificindicators which, while not within the scope of thegeneral purpose of this document, may possibly beuseful for an initial approach to the generation of averitable assessment tool that is duly formalisedand adapted to the reality of each university and/oracademic entity. This does not mean a listing ofdata that are to be obtained to assess the process,but rather a set of formal recommendations togenerate quantitative and/or qualitativeapproximations derived from the generalframework that has been sketched out.Consequently, one may consider the followingaspects for each of the four minimum spheres thatare to be assessed:

1. It is necessary to define whether the diverseinstances are known, whether the disseminationof these options among the students issufficient, and whether there is easy accessibilityin all cases.

2. It is feasible to select, in the various instances, arandom sample of sufficient size in order toassess the distribution of this aspect, thetypologies of suggestions, complaints and/orappeals received, the type of mechanisminvolved in their reception, etc.

3. It is necessary to assess the existence of internalmanagement manuals for these procedures andwhether these manuals are sufficiently completeand well-known; moreover, the degree offulfilment should be estimated.

4. In this point it is necessary to recall that a bestpractice consists of quickness in the effectiveand efficient response to the complaints and/orappeals received, and in the follow-up of theinstitutional impact that they may have.


■ Information channels

5. Information channels

If one wishes conflict to be an opportunity forinstitutional improvement and progress, this mustbe so stated to the students. In this respect, for aslong as this culture is not achieved in a natural way,there must be numerous channels supplying thisinformation.

In the first place, the primordial role to be played bythe teaching staff in this respect should beemphasized. It is evident that interlocution with thestudents, either individually or as a group, is anessential aspect of the learning process. Thequality of this inter-relationship and the institutionalspaces that are devoted to it, determine to a largeextent the boundaries or levels of commitment ofeach university with respect to attention tosuggestions, complaints and claims. The teacherof each subject, the co-ordinator of studies and theselfsame deanery team, as professionals close athand and in direct contact with students, shallbecome the first and foremost catalysts of thisculture.

Together with this indispensable contribution of theteaching staff, three fundamental spaces forproviding the respective information channelsshould be noted.

The information channels may be distributed intothree main groups:

1. Students who accede for the first time to theuniversity shall have access to the informativedocuments that will allow them to acquaintthemselves with the various rules of order thatmay affect them. These documents may bedelivered to them in the enrolment process or ina welcome event for new students. Since the setof documents is usually voluminous and to avoida situation in which the forest cannot be seen forthe trees, the documents should be divided intotwo blocks:

" A short well-selected extract of the aspects that students should not overlook, clearly and explicitly mentioning the good culture of suggestions and complaints.

" The rest of the material that they may need some day, but which does need to be read indispensably from the beginning.

The students who are continuing their studiesshall be provided a clear listing of the changesthat have arisen in the rules from the previouscourse.


■ Information channels

2. Web sites, which shall provide information andthe possibility of lodging complaints andsuggestions, maintained by:

" the selfsame university" the respective teaching centre" the ombudsman’s office, as an institution

that acts to improve university quality in all its aspects

3. Student information and attention offices, whichare essential for the image and the goodinformation that they are to provide.


■ Best practices

6. Best practices

In the previous sections we have described a set ofinstitutional requirements that we consider basic inorder to correctly attend to and manage thesuggestions, complaints and claims that studentssubmit us:

" We have spoken of the need to install ourselvesin a “culture” that will interpret conflict as anopportunity for improvement.

" We have presented some minimum basicnormative and organisational frameworks toundertake with efficacy the management ofsuggestions, complaints and claims.

" We have analysed the information channels thatshall be placed at the disposal of students toachieve the objective that has been set

Despite it all, the case may arise in which auniversity has each of these points very welldefined while presenting, on the other hand, a lowlevel of efficacy in the management of the aspectsstudied. In order for this to occur, it is enough forthe instance or interlocutor who attends to thestudent, whether this involves teaching staff oradministration and services staff, to show a hardlyadequate or hardly receptive attitude. This factunderscores the importance of having a set of“best practices”, beyond the proposedrequirements, that will assure the desiredmanagement.

Without pretending to be exhaustive, the followingare some ideas connected with what are called“best practices”:

" It is advisable to adopt a public institutionalcommitment that will set the times within whichthe university will reply to the requests of theinterested parties.

" It is appropriate for the university to establish acomprehensive register of suggestions,complaints and claims, in order to be able tocarry out their pertinent follow-up and therespective qualitative and quantitative analysis.

" When the university gives its reply to a request,whether it involves a positive or negativeresolution, the reply should be explicitlymotivated.

" The university should be aware that the imagewhich users have of the institution depends to alarge extent on the personal treatment shown bythe persons responsible for direct attention.

" It is important for the collectivity of professionalswho will attend to the students in the firstinstance for the submission of suggestions,complaints or claims, to have a specific trainingin attention to users (importance, procedures,communication techniques, etc.).


■ Best practices

Attitudes to be strengthened for attending tostudents

" Use active listening from the beginning." Maintain a tone of voice that conveys assurance

and respect." State which actions will be taken and within

what time." Reason and ground the reply, whether it is

positive or negative." Use clear language without technicalities or

implicit arguments." Generally, without arbitrariness or favouritisms,

the student should be treated as we ourselveswould like to be treated when we carry out aformality with the Administration.

Attitudes to be avoided when attending tostudents

" Placing the blame on the institution (we are theinstitution!).

" Bemoaning one’s own employment conditions(lack of means, etc.).

" Putting off attention completely when the matterfalls more closely within the sphere of functionsof someone who is momentarily away (“comeback again some other day... the person whohandles these matters is not here at this time”,etc.).

" Continuing to work or to do different things whileattending to users.

" Demanding or asking users to present theirmatters as if they were supposed

" The analysis of the collectivity of professionalswho attend to users at the start of the process,may be an indicator that provides significantinformation on the level of commitment of theuniversity in the handling of these aspects:

· In these positions do we usually find newly-arrived persons (temporary staff, interim personnel or new public officials)?

· What is their training level?· What experience do they have?· What is the professional image of these

positions (low, medium, high...)?

" Direct attention is usually the main gateway ofinformation (input) on the functioning of thesystem. If advantage is not taken of thisinformation, which may be significant, we arenot contributing to the necessary institutionalimprovement.

For indicative purposes, we present below somerecommendations on a set of attitudes that shouldbe taken into account in attending to students.


■ Best practices

Lastly, a good management of these aspects isbased on the need for each instance and eachbody of the institution to assume its competencesand responsibilities.


■ University ombudsman’s offices

7. University ombudsman’s offices

7.1. Background

This set of reflections and proposals, which isaimed to assure the good management ofsuggestions, complaints and claims, would beincomplete if we did not consider an instance thatintervenes in a specific way in these matters: theuniversity ombudsman’s offices. Roughly andbriefly, we will review the appearance andconsolidation of this institution, presenting somecharacteristics that, in our opinion, are necessaryin order for it to function well.

As from the recovery of democracy in Spain, takingadvantage of the autonomy that was granted bythe LRU (Organic Law 11/1983 on UniversityReform), the universities focused on theintroduction of a figure of a special character thatwould watch out for the defence of the rights andfreedoms of all the members of the universitycommunity. In this way, after the action of theuniversity structure’s own instances, thereappeared a last instance of non-executivecharacter for the purpose of acting, ex officio or exparte, in relation to the complaints and remarkssubmitted by the members of the universitycommunity.

This new figure, the same as the citizens’ombudsmen or the autonomous regionalombudsmen, is based on the characteristics of theScandinavian ombudsman. Consequently, thisfigure was not created to take away responsibilitiesfrom the executive apparatus, but rather toimprove its action and the quality of service of the

institutions. In the heart of the complexitycharacteristic of a present-day university and onthe basis of attention to particular cases, theultimate mission of the university ombudsman is todetect operating problems and to propose theircorrection or solution.

In 1985, the University of Barcelona became thefirst Catalan university to define the figure of theombudsman (although the institution did not gointo operation until 1988). The other Catalanuniversities did not delay in endowing themselveswith this institution as well. We thus find that, in the1990s, all the Catalan public universitiespossessed their own ombudsman’s office.

The new university legislation, that is, the LOU(Organic Law 6/2001 on Universities) of the year2001 and the LUC (Act 1/2003 dated 19thFebruary on the Universities of Catalonia) of 2003,marked a turning point in the development of theuniversity ombudsman’s offices by enacting theobligation of establishing this figure.

In conclusion, in Catalonia the universityombudsman’s offices are the result of the freevoluntary commitment of each public university,prior to the obligation established by the LOU andthe LUC, and they have an important baggage ofintervention in the area of endeavour with which weare dealing.



" The ombudsman’s office must have quick easyaccess to the information that it requires. All themembers of the university community shallprovide, without delay in time, the data andinformation requested by the ombudsman’soffice in the exercise of its functions. Without thiscondition, it would be impossible for thefunctions of the ombudsman’s office to becarried out correctly.

" The university ombudsman’s office must haveits own agile communication channels. Whenthe situation so requires, any member of theuniversity community must be able to have easyaccess to the ombudsman.

" The university ombudsman’s office must havesuitable human and material resources to carryout its functions with assurance of success.

" The ombudsman’s office must be a body that isrooted and present in the life of the university. Asin any other instance, the ombudsman’s officeshould be prevented from becoming a sort ofdecorative figure or one situated excessively onthe margin of the university’s reality. In thisrespect, it is highly positive to arrange for itspresence, as necessary, as a guest in thevarious bodies (Governing Council, SocialCouncil, University teachers’ council, etc.).

7.2. The ombudsman’s offices (3)

Below we wish to emphasize some aspects thatare necessary in order to have, on the one hand, anombudsman’s office that can carry out its mission,and on the other, a coherent efficient fit betweenthe ombudsman’s office and the ordinaryinstances provided in the organisation charts ofeach university for attending to suggestions,complaints and claims.

" The university community must be acquaintedwith the existence of the ombudsman’s officeand know when one should resort to it, why oneshould resort to it and how to address it. Thelack of acquaintance with or dissemination ofknowledge about the ombudsman will be asnegative as the incorrect use of this figure as afirst instance. Accordingly, it is absolutelynecessary for each university to define, with thestyle that it prefers but in any case clearly, thewhy and the how of its ombudsman’s office.

" The ombudsman’s office should not act as afirst instance. When members of the universitycommunity address themselves to theombudsman without having exhausted theordinary instances and without the urgency oftime so justifying, the ombudsman shall pointout to the interested parties the body to whichthey should take recourse and the steps to befollowed. Otherwise, instead of contributing tothe qualitative improvement of the institutionalorganisation chart, the ombudsman’s officewould become a competitive instance withrespect to the other bodies.

(3) Section 31 of the LUC.



" The ombudsman’s office should periodicallyinform the university community about theactions that it carries out. It is good for theombudsman’s office, with all due discretion andwithout breaking any confidentiality, to presentor explain to the instances considered pertinent,a report on its actions and on the resultsobtained over the course of the year.

The path, the conditions and the personal profileare indispensable requirements when choosing theperson who is to hold the office of ombudsman.Inasmuch as this institution is not of executivecharacter, to a large extent its efficacy will bederived from the moral authority, recognition andprestige of the ombudsman. Consequently,regardless of whether this person should or shouldnot be a member of the university community, it isof fundamental importance for the institution tolend priority to the human profile and prestige of theproposed person.


■ Acknowledgements

8. Acknowledgements

AQU Catalunya and the committee that has drafted this General Framework wish to give thanks for thecollaboration that has been provided by all the persons who, after an initial reading of the document, havecontributed valuable suggestions and assessments. We trust that we have included the points that are of thegreatest interest.

Carles Alsinet (UdL), Joan Amenós (UAB), Isabel Baixeras (URV), Montserrrat Canals (UdL), JoanRamon Casas (UPC), Jaime Delgado (UPF), Josep Domingo (URV), Jordi Escolar (AQU Catalunya), MariaJesús Espuny (UAB), Josep Fargas (UPF), Maria Lluïsa Florensa (DURSI), Maria Forns (UB), Anna MariaGeli de Siurana (Departament de Benestar i Família), Sara Gimeno (URV), Llorenç Gomis (UPF), FidelMolina (UdL), Pilar Monreal (UdG), Àngels Pèlach (UdG), Joan Lluís Pérez (UAB), Joan Prat (UdL), XavierPueyo (UdG), Josep M. Salla (UPC), Josep Sánchez (UB), Carlos Sánchiz (UAB), M. Carme Saurina(UdG), Ramon Valls (UB), Manel Viader (UB), José Manuel Yábar (UAB)

general framework for the handling of students ... · suggestions, complaints and claims quality,...

Documents