Minutes of the 10th Yokohama City Public University Corporation Evaluation Committee

• Date and time Thursday, April 19, 2007 From 15:00 to 16:00
• Location Yokohama City Hall 2F Reception Room
• Attendees Mr. Kawamura, Mr. Arigawa, Mr. Kishi, Mr. Kirino, Mr. Yamagami
• Disclosure of the form
• As soon as possible
• Proceedings

１．About election of chairperson
(1)　Mr. Kawamura was recommended and approved.
＊Main exchange of opinions, etc.
Based on the progress and achievements so far, I would like to continue to ask Chairman Kawamura.
(2)　Mr. Kawamura appointed Mr. Kirino as acting chairman of the committee.

２．About the ninth Yokohama-shi public university corporation evaluation committee proceedings summary (draft)
[Document 1] The Secretariat gave an explanation and was approved.
＊Main exchange of opinions, etc.
Nothing in particular

３．About the concept of evaluation of the Yokohama City Public University Corporation Evaluation Committee and how to proceed

【Document 2 (PDF: 204KB)】 The secretariat explained, exchanged opinions, and reconfirmed the basic policies. In addition, it was confirmed that the specific method of evaluation for this fiscal year will be examined in the future and that it will be improved.

＊Main exchange of opinions, etc.

・　Based on last year's reflections and issues, if we do not conduct a little more interviews, it will be a formal evaluation based on materials, so we need to devise a little more.

・　Even if it is said that a self-evaluation has created a system / mechanism, it must be originally evaluated whether the contents of the system and whether it is functioning properly. For a large system, it may be necessary to consider evaluation that goes into the contents.

・　As an issue for the evaluation in FY2018, it is also necessary to verify how far the results have been achieved in the first and second years, and whether it is appropriate for the medium-term goals and medium-term plans.

・　There is a time limit, such as receiving a report at the end of June and evaluating it in about two months, but I would like you to explain it individually.

・　Evaluation is not the purpose of the evaluation itself, but it is expected that university management will proceed as planned by conducting the evaluation. It is important that the PDCA cycle, in which the issues that emerge from the evaluation results are reflected in the operation of the next fiscal year, function. It is the responsibility of the Evaluation Committee to evaluate whether it is proceeding as planned, and it is necessary to make sure that it is not an evaluation for evaluation.

・　Although there are time constraints, I would like to consider the schedule etc. so that it can evolve.

４．Others

【Document 3 (PDF: 1,340KB)】 The corporation explained the plans for FY2018 and FY2019, and exchanged opinions.

＊Main exchange of opinions, etc.

・　The aim is to raise the level of education, research, and medical treatment at the university as a whole.

・　Regarding the introduction of school fees by faculties, I think that the high school fees of the medical school are, in a sense, the beneficiary burden, but in the annual plan, the medical school raises awareness of community contributions at the time of enrollment, It states that close cooperation with regional medical institutions is also made in practical training. This means that instead of educating as a public standpoint, we want them to contribute to community medicine, so the nuances may be different on both sides. If the beneficiary burden increases, it will not matter where the student gets a job, and it will be necessary to compromise somewhere.

Above