Notification duty is neglected

In order to avoid problems regarding partiality, the university board decided on regulations in 2000 that stated that employees at the University of Oslo (UiO) have a certain duty of notification regarding any relevant external activities and interests, such as work, duties or interests in any companies or businesses, outside their position at the university. The goal was to ensure that employees did not have any duties or ownership issues that might affect their partiality with regards to the university.

A system of reporting external interests and activities has, however, not been introduced.

In September of 2006, the university decided on an adjusted version of the regulations, and stated that «the regulations will be put into force as soon as this is a practical possibility». The development of a computer system for notification was introduced. Yet it is only now that there is any hope of change; next year, the Organization and Personnel Department (OPA) are hoping to introduce this computer system in the whole university.

– The review that we will be conducting in the beginning of next year should have been completed by the end of 2007. This was not possible, because the system for reporting outside interests and activities had not been implemented, states Audit Manager at UiO, Sveinung Svanberg.

Svanberg says that it is the central administration at the university that has failed to pave the way for employees’ reporting of outside interests and activities.

Must be done quickly

– Nine years have passed since we proposed these regulations, and since then only a few small adjustments have been made. We must put clear and transparent rules regarding outside interests into place as quickly as possible, and I am pleased that the university is looking at this case again, says Arild Underdal, who lead the independent committee that suggested the regulations in 2000.

He points out that the point of the duty of notification is not to prevent employees from taking on external duties, but to avoid problems related to impartiality.

– We were very concerned with situations involving partiality, without using concrete cases as a basis. The regulations were based on the general impression that the university should have clearer guidelines on this point, the former rector of UiO states.

He mentions work as an external examiner at other universities as an example of a desirable extramural activity. On the other hand, it would be problematic if academic staff partook in external activities that were in direct competition with the university, for example starting their own teaching businesses.

– Partiality is sometimes one of life’s realities, but these regulations are supposed to help us think systematically.

– However, it cannot be of much help if the regulations are not put into practice?

– No, that is quite correct. Therefore, it is a good thing that we will now have a functioning register. It is high time, Underdal concludes.

– Correctly prioritized

The working group that drew up the proposal for the execution of the duty of notification in 2006, said that the group «states that the current rules – which are from 2000 and based on the suggestions made by the Underdal Committee – have not been carried out in practice. This is probably due to an insufficient amount of energy and resources being put into putting the rules in practice.»

Assistant Director of Academic Affairs Tove Kristin Karlsen thinks that the issue has been correctly prioritized.

– I would argue that a lot of work has been done on this, but that unfortunate circumstances have led to it taking far too long to implement the system of notification, Karlsen states.

– Then why has it taken almost a decade to put the regulations into practice?

– Two years have passed since the committee decided on new regulations. My statement relates to these regulations, Karlsen says.

Karlsen is not familiar with any situations in which UiO has not approved an employee’s external activities and interests.