Centre for Civic Education (CCE) warns that the absence of precise and effective norms for preventing conflicts of interest at the University of Montenegro (UCG) jeopardises the development of a transparent, merit-based and accountable academic system, and directly creates space for the continuation of practices such as so-called “hereditary chairs”.
A comparative analysis of the statutes, codes of ethics and special bylaws of UCG and the universities in Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana, as well as relevant European models, reveals significant differences in the level of normative regulation, clarity of procedures and institutional commitment to preventing conflicts of interest. In this comparison, UCG stands out as one of the least normatively regulated systems, with a narrow scope of rules and minimal institutional mechanisms to protect against non-objective and potentially biased decision-making.
Such a normative vacuum results in conflicts of interest at UCG continuing to be addressed partially and formalistically, without established mechanisms capable of ensuring substantial protection of academic integrity. The Statute and the Code of Ethics of UCG contain only general and insufficiently precise provisions, without clear definitions, obligations and procedures, which makes them ineffective in practice and leaves broad room for abuse.
The University of Ljubljana, through its Rules on Avoiding Conflict of Interest and on the Conditions for Performing Work Outside the University of Ljubljana, establishes a significantly higher level of normative regulation. The Rules prescribe the obligation for all employees, upon entering into employment, to report all circumstances that constitute a conflict of interest, as well as any change or the emergence of new circumstances that constitute a conflict of interest. In addition, each member institution of the University is obliged to develop and implement a conflict-of-interest risk management plan and to regularly report on this to the competent bodies. This is an example of preventive regulation that systematically identifies and reduces risks.
The Code of Professional Ethics of the University of Belgrade prescribes a broader range of relationships that may lead to a conflict of interest, including spouses and unmarried partners, blood kinship in the direct line, i.e. in the collateral line, and affinity kinship up to and including the second degree of kinship, a relationship based on adoption, a relationship of godparenthood, close friendship or an intimate relationship, as well as all other persons who are connected by interests with a member of the university community. This enables the recognition not only of formal family ties, but also of other forms of closeness that may undermine impartiality in decision-making, which is not recognised at all at UCG under the existing regulations.
A similar, but additionally improved in scope, normative approach is also applied by the University of Zagreb through the Code of Ethics of the University of Zagreb. Namely, in addition to family and other close ties, this model explicitly recognises the existence of antagonism. This clearly indicates that a conflict of interest does not arise exclusively in situations of closeness and positive relationships that may lead to favouritism, but also in cases of personal animosity, long-standing disputes, professional rivalry or other forms of negative relationships that may lead to non-objective and unfair decision-making, which is a common but, in our system, unregulated form of conflict of interest.
When it comes to best European practices, the University of Cambridge goes a step further by prescribing an obligation to declare any form of family or other closeness among employees, including relationships that arise during the course of employment. At the same time, articipation in recruitment, appraisal, promotion and other procedures relating to close persons is prohibited, as is line management between them. This completely eliminates the possibility of direct or indirect influence on professional status and career progression, which represents a strong mechanism for safeguarding academic integrity. Similar standards are applied by a number of universities in the United Kingdom, including the University of Oxford.
In addition, European standards for the recruitment of academic staff, in particular the OTM-R framework (Open, Transparent and Merit-Based Recruitment), clearly confirm that open calls, transparent criteria, consistent application of merit-based principles and the inclusion of external members of selection committees are key to preventing conflicts of interest. This model, applied by numerous universities holding the HR Excellence label, such as the Jagiellonian University in Kraków or Charles University in Prague, represents the standard that UCG would have to aspire to if it wishes to improve the integrity of its procedures and align itself with the European academic area.
Taking into account the shortcomings outlined above, CCE recommends that UCG, through its normative acts:
- precisely define the circle of related persons who may lead to a conflict of interest and undermine impartiality in decision-making, including family, partner, professional, mentoring and friendship relationships, as well as antagonistic relationships;
- introduce an obligation to declare all circumstances that constitute, or may constitute, a conflict of interest, with a clear, formalised and binding procedure for recusal from decision-making;
- establish conflict-of-interest risk management plans, following, for example, the practice of the University of Ljubljana, as a systemic preventive mechanism;
- align the Statute and the Code of Ethics with European standards (including OTM-R i HR Excellence), with mandatory participation of external members in committees and the elimination of hidden favouritism and closed procedures, following the models of the best European universities;
- prohibit line management between close persons and prescribe an obligation to declare all relevant relationships, including those arising during the course of employment, thereby preventing a superior and a subordinate from being in a relationship of family or other closeness.
Without such systemic and normative changes, UCG remains exposed to further erosion of academic integrity, deepening distrust and the maintenance of practices that are incompatible with modern European university standards. Such a situation inevitably affects the quality of academic staff and, consequently, the level of knowledge, skills and competences that UCG graduates carry with them. Therefore, it is in the public interest for UCG to demonstrate a significantly higher level of institutional responsibility and commitment to preventing conflicts of interest and to the consistent protection of academic integrity.
Jovana Radulović, Project Assistant