山东省教育督导条例
山东省人大常委会
山东省人民代表大会常务委员会公告
（第８７号）
《山东省教育督导条例》已于２００１年１２月７日经山东省第九届人民代表大会常务委员会第二十四次会议通过，现予公布，自２００２年３月１日起施行。
山东省人民代表大会常务委员会
２００１年１２月７日
山东省教育督导条例
第一条 为了加强教育督导工作，保障教育法律、法规的实施和教育目标的实现，根据《中华人民共和国教育法》及有关法律、法规的规定，结合本省实际，制定本条例。
第二条 本条例所称教育督导，是指县级以上人民政府按照管辖权限对本行政区域内教育工作依法进行的监督、检查、评估、指导等活动。
第三条 教育督导的范围是本省管辖的各级各类教育以及与教育相关的活动。
教育督导的对象是本级人民政府的有关部门、下级人民政府及其有关部门、学校和其他教育教学机构（以下简称学校）。
第四条 教育督导应当依法进行，坚持实事求是、客观公正的原则。
第五条 县级以上人民政府应当加强对教育督导工作的领导，为教育督导工作提供必要的条件。
第六条 县级以上人民政府教育督导机构代表本级人民政府履行教育督导职责，业务上接受上级教育督导机构的指导。
第七条 教育督导机构履行下列职责：
（一）统筹规划、组织实施教育督导工作，拟订教育督导、评估工作的实施方案和规章制度；
（二）对本级人民政府的有关部门和下级人民政府及其教育行政部门实施教育法律、法规和履行教育职责的情况进行督导检查；
（三）对学校的办学方向、办学条件、办学质量和办学效益进行检查评估；
（四）对实施素质教育的情况进行督导；
（五）对教育工作中的重大问题进行调查研究，向本级人民政府或者上级教育督导机构提出意见和建议；
（六）参与教育先进单位的评审，对被督导学校主要负责人的奖惩、任免向有关部门提出建议；
（七）法律、法规规定的其他职责。
第八条 县级以上人民政府教育督导机构设立专职督学和兼职督学。专职督学和兼职督学按照有关规定任免或者聘任，并由同级人民政府颁发督学证书。
兼职督学行使与专职督学同等的职权。
第九条 督学应当具备下列条件：
（一）坚持中国共产党的基本路线，热爱社会主义教育事业；
（二）熟悉有关教育法律、法规，有较高理论水平和实际工作能力；
（三）具有大学本科以上学历或者高级专业技术职务，有十年以上教育工作经历；
（四）坚持原则，秉公执法；
（五）身体健康，能坚持正常工作。
第十条 督学在教育督导活动中行使下列职权：
（一）检查被督导单位遵守有关教育法律、法规的情况；
（二）对学生课业负担情况和收费及其使用情况进行检查；
（三）参加教育、教学活动，列席被督导单位的有关会议；
（四）查阅有关文件、档案、资料；
（五）对被督导单位的工作提出意见和建议或者向人民政府及其有关部门反映情况，提出意见和建议；
（六）法律、法规规定的其他职权。
第十一条 督学进行教育督导时，应当出示督学证书。
第十二条 督学应当接受国家或者省组织的教育督导培训。
第十三条 教育督导的基本形式为综合督导、专项督导和随访督导。根据需要，教育督导机构可以与有关部门联合进行教育督导。
第十四条 综合督导和专项督导按照下列程序实施：
（一）确定教育督导目的、内容，提前向被督导单位发出书面通知；
（二）督促、指导被督导单位进行自查并提出自查报告；
（三）对被督导单位进行检查或者评估，必要时可以进行复查；
（四）向被督导单位通报督导结论，提出整改意见；
（五）向本级人民政府和上一级教育督导机构提出督导报告，必要时可以将督导结论在本行政区域内通报或者向社会公布。
第十五条 按照教育督导机构的统一安排，督学两人以上可以进行随访督导。随访督导结束后，应当向教育督导机构或者人民政府提出督导报告。
第十六条 被督导单位应当按照教育督导机构或者督学提出的意见和建议进行整改，并将整改情况书面报告教育督导机构和督学。
第十七条 督导结论应当作为有关部门对被督导单位及其主要负责人政绩考核、奖惩任免的重要依据。
第十八条 被督导单位对督导结论有异议的，可以在收到督导结论之日起十五日内，向作出督导结论的教育督导机构申请复查。教育督导机构应当在收到复查申请之日起一个月内作出复查结论。被督导单位对复查结论仍有异议的，可以向设立该教育督导机构的人民政府或者上一级教育督导机构申诉。
第十九条 督学与被督导单位有利害关系或者其他关系可能影响教育督导工作的，应当回避。
第二十条 被督导单位及其有关人员有下列情形之一的，由教育督导机构给予通报批评；对主要负责人员或者直接责任人员，由其主管部门给予行政处分；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任：
（一）阻挠、抗拒教育督导机构或者督学依法执行职务的；
（二）拒不执行教育督导机构或者督学的整改建议的；
（三）弄虚作假，欺骗教育督导机构或者督学的；
（四）对如实向教育督导机构或者督学反映情况的人员进行打击报复的；
（五）妨碍教育督导工作的其他情形。
第二十一条 督学有下列情形之一的，由其主管部门给予批评教育或者行政处分；情节严重的，由任免机关撤销其督学职务；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任：
（一）失职、渎职贻误工作的；
（二）利用职权谋取私利的；
（三）歪曲事实，不如实反映情况的；
（四）利用职权包庇或者打击报复他人的；
（五）滥用职权的其他情形。
第二十二条 本条例自２００２年３月１日起施行。１９９２年６月２４日山东省人民政府发布的《山东省实施〈教育督导暂行规定〉办法》同时废止。
Expansion of Applicable Sphere: A way to Uniformity
——Compare and Contrast between UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL Conventions
By Dongsheng Lu, Chen Yan
I. Introduction
Financing is paramount for the promotion of commerce. It has been noted that “in developed countries the bulk of corporate wealth is locked up in receivables”. As the economy develops, this wealth increasing is “unlocked by transferring receivables across national borders”. With the prompt and great increases in international trade, receivables financing now plays a more and more important role. Yet under the law of many countries, certain forms of receivables financing are still not recognized. Even transactions are involved in countries where the form of receivables financing is permitted, determining which law governs will be difficult. The disparity among laws of different jurisdiction increases uncertainty in transactions, thus constitutes obstacles to the development of assignments of receivables. To remove such obstacles arising from the uncertainty existing in various legal systems and promote the development of receivables financing cross-boarder, a set of uniform rules in this field is required. The international community has made great efforts in adopting uniform laws. Among those efforts, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) drafted, on 12 December, 2001, “United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCITRAL Convention”), with its aim to “establish principles and to adopt rules relating to the assignment of receivables that would create certainty and transparency and promote the modernization of the law relating to assignments of receivables”. UNCITRAL is not the first international organization attempting to resolve the problems associated with receivables. As early as in May 1988, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) has already adopted a convention known as the “UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNIDROIT Convention”).
When compare and contrast between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, one might see a lot of inconsistency in detailed regulations, e.g. sphere of application, relations between parties, priorities, and choice of law, etc. Given the limited space available in this article, the author may only focus on the difference in “sphere of application” of these two conventions, as sphere of application is perhaps the most fundamental issue of a convention.
The purpose of an international convention is to create uniformity in its covered matter, thus the broader a convention’s sphere of application is, the higher could uniformity reach. This article will try to make compare and contrast the sphere of application between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, illustrate the differences exist between these two conventions, and demonstrate the expansion of sphere of application in the UNCITRAL Convention and its progress on the way to uniformity.
II. Sphere of Application: Subject Matter
As its title indicates, the subject matter of the UNIDROIT Convention is of course international factoring. Article 1(1) says, “this Convention governs factoring contracts and assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter.”
For “factoring contract”, the UNIDROIT Convention provides the following 4 characteristics:
(1) purpose of the contract is to assign receivables;
(2) receivables to be assigned arises from contracts of sale of goods made between the supplier and its customers (debtors), other than those of sale of goods bought primarily for personal, family or household use;
(3) the factor is to perform at least two of the four functions: (i) finance for the supplier; (ii) maintenance of accounts (ledgering) relating to the receivables; (iii) collection of receivables; and (iv) protection against default in payment by debtors;
(4) notice of the assignment of the receivables is to be given to debtors.
As about “assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter”, article 2 (1) describes assignments of receivables as assignment of receivables pursuant to a factoring contract.
Factoring is just a subset of the receivables financing, and perhaps the oldest and most basic one. Besides factoring, receivables financing still entail the following forms,
(1) Forfeiting, similar to factoring, involves the purchase or discounting of documentary receivables (promissory notes, for example) without recourse to the party from whom the receivables are purchased;
(2) Refinancing, also known as secondary financing, involves the subsequent assignment of receivables. In its basic form, one bank or financier will assign to another bank its interest, with the potential for further assignment;
(3) Securitization, in which both marketable (for example, trade receivables) and non-marketable (consumer credit card receivables) asset cash flows are repackaged by a lender and transferred to a lender-controlled company, which will issue securities, sell and then use the proceeds to purchase the receivables;
(4) Project Finance, in which repayment of loans made by banks or financiers to project contractors for the financing of projects are secured through the future revenues of the project.
The first draft of the UNCITRAL Convention has stated to cover factoring, forfeiting, refinancing, securitization and project finance. Somehow, the working group decides that rather than emphasize the form in which the receivables appear, it would instead concentrate on the way in which the receivables might be transferred (contractual or non-contractual) and the purpose of the transaction (for financing or non-financing purposes). It decides the contractual receivables and assignment made to secure financing and other related services would be covered. The non-contractual receivables such as insurance and tort receivables, deposit bank accounts, or claims arising by operation of law seems are not within the ambits of the UNCITRAL convention.
III. Sphere of Application: Special Requirements
Both of the conventions contain a series of requirements. Only when those requirements are satisfied, could the convention be applied. The higher and stricter the requirements are, the smaller the chance to apply the convention is.
a) Internationality requirement
Both the two conventions indicate their sphere of application is of internationality requirement, but the same word in these two conventions has different legal meaning. The internationality requirement of UNIDROIT Convention is exclusively based upon the parties to the underlying contract, i.e. the contract of sale of goods (the supplier and the debtor) having their place of business in different countries. In other words, where the receivables arise from a contract of sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in the same State, the UNIDROIT Convention could not apply, no matter the following assignment of receivables is to assignee in the same or different State. Thus leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables untouched. The problem, at its simplest, is twofold: first, inconsistency. For instance, in the case where a bulk assignment is made and where part of the receivables are domestic (supplier and debtor are in the same State) and part are international (supplier and debtor are in different State), if the supplier assigns the receivables to a party which is located in another State, the bulk assignment between the same supplier and the same assignee will be governed by two sets of laws and regulations: the portion of international receivables may be governed by the UNIDROIT Convention while the domestic one will be left to the jurisdiction of certain domestic law.
Secondly, leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables to the jurisdiction of various law systems of different States can make “commercial practice uncertain, time-consuming and expensive”. The assignee of receivables from a foreign State may not know which State’s law governs the transaction, and, if the law of the assignor’s State applies, the assignee’s rights would be subject to the vagaries of that foreign law. This no doubt would greatly impede the development of such transaction.
