text:
ZÁPADOČESKÁ UNIVERZITA V PLZNI FAKULTA EKONOMICKÁ. Diplomová práce. Ekonomika a financování školství. Economy and fuding of education. - PDF
 Download "ZÁPADOČESKÁ UNIVERZITA V PLZNI FAKULTA EKONOMICKÁ. Diplomová práce. Ekonomika a financování školství. Economy and fuding of education."
 1 ZÁPADOČESKÁ UNIVERZITA V PLZNI FAKULTA EKONOMICKÁ Diplomová práce Ekonomika a financování školství Economy and fuding of education Lumír Hodina Plzeň 2014
 3 Prohlašují, že jsem diplomovou práci na téma Ekonomika a financování školství vypracoval samostatně pod odborným dohledem vedoucího diplomové práce za použití pramenů uvedených v přiložené bibliografii. Plzeň dne 25. dubna podpis autora
 4 Na tomto místě bych rád poděkoval panu Ing. Karlu Karlovcovi za cenné připomínky a odborné rady, kterými přispěl k vypracování této diplomové práce. Dále bych chtěl poděkovat za poskytnutí interních materiálů a odborných rad řediteli ZŠ a MŠ Mirošov panu Mgr. Rostislavu Judlovi a ekonomce školy paní Ivaně Čechové.
 5 Obsah Úvod Systém školství v ČR Obecné cíle vzdělávání Zásady vzdělávání Druhy škol Předškolní vzdělávání Základní vzdělávání Střední vzdělávání Konzervatoře Vyšší odborné vzdělávání Vysoké školství Orgány veřejné správy Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy Česká školní inspekce Obec Kraj Financování školství Financování vysokých škol Financování regionálního školství Hospodaření škol Rozdělování prostředků v regionálním školství ZŠ a MŠ Mirošov Financování ZŠ a MŠ Mirošov Analýza hospodaření ZŠ a MŠ Mirošov Analýza nákladů Analýza výnosů Analýza výsledku hospodaření Finanční analýza ZŠ a MŠ Mirošov Vývoj bilanční sumy Vertikální a horizontální analýza Vertikální analýza
 6 7.2.2 Horizontální analýza Rozdílové ukazatele Dílčí ukazatele finanční analýzy Ukazatele autarkie Ukazatele rentability Ukazatele likvidity Ukazatele aktivity Ukazatele financování Zhodnocení současné situace a návrh opatření na zlepšení Závěr Seznam tabulek Seznam obrázků Seznam použitých zkratek Seznam použité literatury Seznam příloh
 7 Úvod Porozhlédneme-li se kolem sebe, zjistíme, že jsou ve světě mezi jednotlivými státy patrné velké rozdíly. Je nutné si proto položit zásadní otázku, čím je tento stav způsoben. Někdo by mohl argumentovat stářím jednotlivých státních celků, někdo kulturními odlišnostmi a někdo pak něčím zcela odlišným. Tyto argumenty je však možné akceptovat pouze částečně. Dnes totiž již nežijeme ve světě, kde se jednotlivé státy vyvíjejí zcela izolovaně, ale ve světě, kde globalizace dosáhla takové úrovně, že jednotlivé státy jsou na sobě navzájem existenčně závislé. Pomyslná propast mezi jednotlivými státy musí tedy být způsobena něčím jiným. Tím něčím, co činí rozdíl mezi vyspělými a rozvojovými zeměmi, je vzdělanost jejich obyvatelstva. Růst kvalifikované pracovní síly přispívá k mobilitě a flexibilitě pracovní síly, a tím i k rozvoji celé ekonomiky a zároveň posiluje demokracii a svobodu (Ochrana, Pavel, & Vítek, 2010, str. 107). Ne nadarmo se říká, že investice do svého vzdělání je pro člověka ta nejlepší investice vůbec. Přesně to pak analogicky platí i v případě států. Investice do vzdělání jejich obyvatelstva je to nejlepší, co můžou udělat pro svůj budoucí růst. Nevýhodou této investice je však skutečnost, že její pozitivní výsledky nejsou vidět ihned. Jedná se o dlouhodobý proces, který začne nést ovoce teprve až po několika letech. Právě z tohoto důvodu se pak mnozí čelní představitelé rozvojových zemí zaměřují raději na nic neřešící investice zajišťující pro stát pouze bezprostřední a krátkodobý přínos a přitom si neuvědomují, že se díky své krátkozrakosti točí v začarovaném kruhu, z kterého nevede žádná cesta ven. Vyspělé země tuto chybu většinou nedělají, a tak se pomyslné nůžky mezi nimi a rozvojovými zeměmi rozevírají stále více a více. Diplomová práce bude věnována problematice ekonomiky a financování školství v České republice (ČR). Zvláštní důraz zde bude kladen na podání podrobné charakteristiky systému školství v ČR a financování jednotlivých typů škol. Významnou částí práce bude zpracovaná finanční analýza některých vybraných ukazatelů pro ZŠ a MŠ Mirošov, na jejímž základě bude následně zhodnocena současná situace tohoto subjektu a budou navržena vhodná opatření, která povedou k jejímu zlepšení. V úvodu práce bude dán prostor k podrobné charakteristice současného systému českého školství. Na základě aktuální právní úpravy budou popsány jednotlivé druhy 7
 8 předškolních zařízení, škol a školských zařízení, přičemž bude kladen důraz na podrobný popis rysů charakteristických právě pro jejich daný typ. Důležitou součástí bude také charakteristika jednotlivých orgánů veřejné správy, které svou činností do oblasti školství zasahují. Velká pozornost bude věnována financování jednotlivých typů škol, které je závislé na podobě jejich zřizovatele. Bude zde vysvětleno jakým způsobem a z jakých prostředků jsou školy financovány v případě veřejného sektoru a jakým způsobem jsou financovány v případě sektoru soukromého. Pozornost bude zaměřena především na problematiku financování regionálního školství, jehož se bude týkat celá praktická část této práce. Následně bude provedena již samotná analýza vybraného subjektu, kterým je v tomto případě ZŠ a MŠ Mirošov, jejímž zřizovatelem je město Mirošov. Analýza bude sestávat ze tří částí: analýzy financování, analýzy hospodaření a finanční analýzy. Díky provedené analýze bude možné podrobně popsat a zhodnotit současnou finanční situaci školy. Na závěr práce budou na základě provedené finanční analýzy a jejích výstupů navržena vhodná opatření, která by měla vést ke zlepšení zjištěné situace. Samozřejmostí bude také vysvětlení, v čem konkrétním budou daná opatření pro budoucí stav školy přínosná a jakým způsobem by měla být implementována. Při zpracování práce se bude vycházet především z tematicky zaměřené odborné literatury, a to ať již české, tak i zahraniční, platných právních předpisů, internetových zdrojů a interních informací získaných ze ZŠ a MŠ Mirošov. 8
 9 1 Systém školství v ČR Na vzdělání lze pohlížet jako na veřejný statek, resp. slovy školského zákona veřejnou službu, kterou stát poskytuje svým občanům. V ČR má každý občan právo na vzdělání. Toto právo je mu garantováno ústavním pořádkem ČR, resp. čl. 33 Listiny základních práv a svobod (LZPS) a čl. 2 Protokolu č. 1 Evropské úmluvy o ochraně lidských práv a základních svobod. Dle LZPS má být toto vzdělání bezplatné, a to minimálně v případě státních základních a středních škol. Právo na bezplatné vzdělání však nevylučuje možnost zpoplatněného vzdělání realizovaného soukromými, resp. církevními školami. Problematika vzdělávání a školství čerpá kromě ústavněprávních pramenů také z pramenů na úrovni zákonných a podzákonných právních předpisů, jejichž prostřednictvím zákonodárce, vláda a Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy (MŠMT) upravuje systém vzdělávání a školství. Z těchto právních předpisů je nutné jmenovat především zákon č. 564/2004 Sb., o předškolním, základním, středním, vyšším odborném a jiném vzdělávání (školský zákon), vyhláška č. 14/2005 Sb., o předškolním vzdělávání, vyhláška č. 74/2005 Sb., o zájmovém vzdělávání a zákon č. 111/1998 Sb., o vysokých školách. Tyto zákony upravují především jednotlivé součásti tvořící vzdělávací soustavu v ČR. Kromě práva na bezplatné vzdělání ukládá LZPS občanům ČR zároveň povinnost školní docházky, přičemž ta je povinná pouze po dobu stanovenou zákonem, která dle 34 školského zákona činí devět školních roků, trvá však nejdéle do konce školního roku, ve kterém žák dosáhl věku 17 let (Klíma, 2010). V této kapitole rozdělené do čtyř podkapitol budou nejprve definovány cíle vzdělávání stanovené školským zákonem. Obdobně budou v následující podkapitole definovány zásady vzdělávání. Ve třetí podkapitole bude podrobně popsán systém škol a školských zařízení v ČR, přičemž budou vystiženy především ty jejich rysy, které jsou pro daná zařízení charakteristické. Zvláštní důraz bude věnován základním školám a mateřským školám, neboť součástí této diplomové práce je i finanční analýza konkrétní základní a mateřské školy. Ve čtvrté podkapitole budou charakterizovány jednotlivé orgány veřejné správy, jejichž činnost se vztahuje k oblasti školství. 9
 10 1.1 Obecné cíle vzdělávání Základní cíle poskytovaného vzdělávání jsou dle 2 odst. 2 školského zákona následující: rozvoj osobnosti člověka, zisk všeobecného nebo všeobecného a odborného vzdělání, pochopení a následné uplatňování zásad demokracie, právního státu, základních lidských práv a svobod včetně smyslu pro sociální soudržnost, pochopení principu rovnosti mezi muži a ženami ve společnosti, budování národního a státního vědomí, seznámení se se světovými a evropskými hodnotami a tradicemi, pochopení zásad a pravidel vyplývajících z evropské integrace, zisk znalostí o životním prostředí a jeho ochraně vycházející ze zásad trvale udržitelného rozvoje a o bezpečnosti a ochraně zdraví. 1.2 Zásady vzdělávání Školský zákon pro vzdělávání stanovuje v 2 odst. 1 zásady, které tvoří společně základní pilíře celého vzdělávacího systému v ČR a prostupují celým tímto systémem. Jedná se o tyto zásady: zásada rovného přístupu každého občana ČR nebo Evropské unie (EU) ke vzdělávání bez jakékoliv diskriminace, zásada zohledňování vzdělávacích potřeb jednotlivce, zásada vzájemné úcty, respektu, názorové snášenlivosti, solidarity a důstojnosti mezi účastníky vzdělávání, zásada bezplatnosti základního a středního školství pro občany ČR a občany EU, zásada svobodného šíření poznatků vyplývajících ze současného stavu poznaní světa, zásada zdokonalování vzdělávacího procesu na základě dosažených vědeckých výsledků a používání moderních účinných pedagogických přístupů a metod, zásada hodnocení výsledků vzdělávání vzhledem k dosahování vzdělávacích cílů stanovených školským zákonem a vzdělávacími programy, zásada možnosti celoživotního vzdělávání. 10
 11 1.3 Druhy škol Jak již bylo výše uvedeno, školský zákon říká, že vzdělávací soustava je tvořena školami a školskými zařízeními. V této kapitole se budu věnovat pouze členění škol. Dle 7 školského zákona je soustava škol tvořena mateřskými školami, základními školami, středními školami, konzervatořemi, vyššími odbornými školami, základními uměleckými školami a jazykovými školami s právem státní jazykové zkoušky. Střední školy jsou pak dále děleny na gymnázia, střední odborné školy a střední odborná učiliště. Proto, aby byl výčet škol úplný, je nutné nahlédnout do zákona č. 111/1998 Sb., o vysokých školách, který zavádí jako nejvyšší stupeň škol vysoké školy. Aby mohla škola nebo školské zařízení vykonávat vzdělávací činnost, pro kterou byly svým zřizovatelem založeny, je nutné, aby byly zapsány do školského rejstříku. Vzdělávání ve školách a školských zařízeních je zajišťováno pedagogickými pracovníky, jimž se podrobně věnuje zákon č. 563/2004 Sb., o pedagogických pracovnících a o změně některých zákonů. Školy je možné dělit dle různých kritérií. Jedním z možných dělení, je dělení podle zřizovatele školy, kterým může být podle 8 školského zákona kraj, obec, dobrovolný svazek obcí, Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy ČR, Ministerstvo obrany ČR, Ministerstvo vnitra ČR, Ministerstvo spravedlnosti ČR, Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí ČR, Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí ČR a registrované církve a náboženské společnosti, kterým bylo přiznáno oprávnění zřizovat církevní školy a ostatní fyzické a právnické osoby. Podle zřizovatele pak lze dělit školy na státní, vojenské, policejní, požární, obecní, církevní a soukromé. V případě, že zřizovatelem je obec, kraj, resp. dobrovolný svazek obcí, má škola nebo školské zařízení podobu školské právnické osoby nebo příspěvkové organizace. Církev, náboženské společnosti a ostatní právnické nebo fyzické osoby zřizují školy a školská zařízení v podobě školských právnických osob nebo právnických osob podle zvláštních právních předpisů. V případě, že je zřizovatelem některé z ministerstev, kterým zákon tuto možnost poskytuje, mají školy nebo školská zařízení podobu školské právnické osoby nebo státní příspěvkové organizace (MŠMT), organizační složky státu nebo její součásti (Ministerstvo obrany, Ministerstvo vnitra, Ministerstvo spravedlnosti 11
 12 a Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí). Zřizuje-li Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí školu při diplomatické nebo konzulární misi, stává se tato škola součástí těchto úřadů. Existuje ještě další možnost členění škol, která seskupuje školy podle úrovně, na níž se ve vzdělávací soustavě nacházejí. Takovýto systém pak rozděluje vzdělání na předškolní vzdělání, primární vzdělání, nižší sekundární vzdělání, vyšší sekundární vzdělání, post-sekundární vzdělání a terciární vzdělání. Pro ilustraci a pochopení, jaký je vztah mezi jednotlivými stupni škol slouží schéma vzdělávací soustavy v ČR, které je uvedeno v Příloze A. Toto schéma znázorňuje členění podle dvou ze tří výše zmíněných kritérií Předškolní vzdělávání Předškolní vzdělávání je upraveno v části druhé školského zákona. Cílem předškolního vzdělávání není suplovat výchovnou roli rodiny, nýbrž ji vhodným způsobem doplňuje. Jedná se o etapu vzdělávání dítěte, ve které se rozvíjí jeho citové, rozumové a tělesné vlastnosti. Dochází také k osvojení základních pravidel společenského chování, základních životních hodnot a mezilidských vztahů. Na předškolní vzdělávání lze pohlížet jako na jakýsi vzdělanostní základ, v němž dítě získává poznatky o životě kolem sebe a podněty užitečné pro pokračující vzdělávání. Předškolní vzdělávání není povinné. Je realizováno především v mateřských školách nebo v přípravných třídách základních škol. Tento stupeň vzdělávání je určen pro děti ve věku od tří do šesti let (v případě odkladu do sedmi let), při existenci opodstatněných důvodů i pro děti mladší. Přednostní docházka do mateřských škol se nabízí dětem, které se nacházejí v posledním roce před nástupem do základní školy. Mateřské školy mohou mít charakter buď samostatného školského zařízení, nebo mohou působit jako součást jiných školských zařízení (Národní ústav pro vzdělávání, 2013). Na následujících tabulkách je možné pozorovat nejprve počty mateřských škol řazených podle jejich zřizovatele, kterým mohou být subjekty uvedené v kapitole Druhy škol, jednak počty dětí, které navštěvují mateřské školy. Obě tabulky znázorňují data ze školních let 2003/2004 až 2012/
 13 v tom v tom v tom v tom Tab. č. 1: Počty mateřských škol podle zřizovatele ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Mateřské školy Celkem veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Z tabulky je patrná jasná převaha veřejných mateřských škol před soukromými, přesto je však možné pozorovat v posledních třech letech razantní nárůst soukromých mateřských škol. Nejčastějším zřizovatelem mateřských škol ve sledovaném období byly obce. Tab. č. 2: Vývoj počtu dětí v mateřských školách ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Děti Celkem veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR 13
 14 V posledních letech se řeší problém nedostatku míst v mateřských školách. Je to dáno tím, že v minulosti byla tato místo zredukována. Nyní však nastupuje do mateřských škol silná generace, což je vidět i z uvedené tabulky Základní vzdělávání Základní vzdělávání má svůj zákonný základ v části třetí hlavě druhé školského zákona. V 44 výše zmíněného zákona je cíl základního vzdělávání stanoven následovně. Základní vzdělávání vede k tomu, aby si žáci osvojili potřebné strategie učení a na jejich základě byli motivováni k celoživotnímu učení, aby se učili tvořivě myslet a řešit přiměřené problémy, účinně komunikovat a spolupracovat, chránit své fyzické i duševní zdraví, vytvořené hodnoty a životní prostředí, být ohleduplní a tolerantní k jiným lidem, k odlišným kulturním a duchovním hodnotám, poznávat své schopnosti a reálné možnosti a uplatňovat je spolu s osvojenými vědomostmi a dovednostmi při rozhodování o své další životní dráze a svém profesním uplatnění. Jinými slovy jeho podstata tkví v tom, že stát poskytuje žákům základy využitelné pro jejich celoživotní učení. Výuka v rámci základního vzdělávání je realizována na základní škole (devítiletý program), základní škole speciální (desetiletý program), na nižším stupni víceletých gymnázií a konzervatoří v osmiletém oboru vzdělání tanec. Výuka probíhá podle Rámcového vzdělávacího programu pro základní vzdělávání doplněného o standardy základního vzdělání. Základní vzdělání je považováno za ukončené po splnění povinné školní docházky, obvykle tedy po devíti letech studia, resp. ukončením školního roku, v němž žák dosáhl 17 let. Základní vzdělání je možné získat také splněním kursu pro získání základního vzdělání, který je realizován základní nebo střední školou. Tyto kursy jsou určeny pro lidi, kteří neukončili základní vzdělání v rámci povinné školní docházky. Dokončením základního vzdělání se žákovi otevírá možnost pokračovat ve studiu na střední škole nebo jejím ekvivalentu v rámci systému středního vzdělávání. Pro žáky, u kterých zjistí školské poradenské zařízení, že trpí středně těžkým a těžkým mentálním postižením, souběžným postižením s více vadami a autismem, je základní vzdělávání většinou poskytováno v základních školách speciálních. Toto vzdělávání je zaměřeno přímo na potřeby těchto žáků. Cílem základních škol speciálních je usnadnit 14
 15 v tom v tom žákům budoucí postup do dalšího stupně vzdělávání a zapojení se do praktického života. Výuka na těchto školách probíhá podle školních vzdělávacích programů v souladu s Rámcovým vzdělávacím programem pro obor vzdělání Základní škola speciální. Absolvováním základní školy speciální získává žák možnost pokračovat na jednoleté, resp. dvouleté praktické škole. Zřizovatelé základních škol a základních škol speciálních jsou subjekty uvedené v kapitole Druhy škol. V následující tabulce jsou uvedeny počty základních škol a základních škol speciálních ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 podle jejich zřizovatele. Tab. č. 3: Počty základních škol a základních škol speciálních podle zřizovatele ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Základní školy a základní školy speciální Celkem veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Z tabulky je patrná jasná dominance veřejných základních škol. Zřizovatelem byly v tomto případě nejčastěji obce. V případě škol zřizovaných kraji se jedná o základní školy speciální. Z celkových čísel je vidět klesající trend počtu škol v ČR, který je dán dlouhodobým úbytkem počtu žáků základních škol. V posledních dochází k mírnému počtu žáků. Celkový vývoj počtu žáků v základních školách a základních školách speciálních je patrný na následující tabulce. V budoucnu se předpokládá ještě větší nárůst počtu žáků, neboť silné ročníky, které nyní navštěvují mateřské školy, budou postupně nastupovat do základních škol. 15
 16 v tom v tom Tab. č. 4: Vývoj počtu žáků základních škol a základních škol speciálních ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 16 Žáci Celkem veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Střední vzdělávání Cílem středního vzdělávání je dle 57 školského zákona rozvoj vědomostí, dovedností, schopností, postojů a hodnot, které byly získány v průběhu základního vzdělávání a jsou důležité pro osobní rozvoj jedince. Žákům je poskytováno obsahově širší všeobecné vzdělání nebo odborné vzdělání, které je spojeno se všeobecným vzděláním, a jeho cílem je upevnit hodnotovou orientaci žáků. Dalším cílem je vytvoření předpokladů nutných pro plnoprávný osobní a občanský rozvoj, samostatné získávání informací a celoživotní učení, pokračování v navazujícím vzdělávání a přípravu pro výkon povolání, resp. pracovní činnosti. Střední vzdělávání je dle 58 možné členit na tři stupně podle způsobu jejich zakončení. Zákon počítá se středním vzdělávání, středním vzdělávání s výučním listem a středním vzdělávání s maturitní zkouškou. Střední vzdělání lze získat, pokud je splněn jednoletý, resp. dvouletý vzdělávací program realizovaný v denní formě vzdělání. Střední vzdělání s výučním listem je žákem získáno úspěšným absolvováním dvouletého, resp. tříletého vzdělávacího programu v denní formě vzdělání. Lze jej však získat i úspěšným absolvováním vzdělávacího programu zkráceného studia pro získání středního vzdělání s výučním listem. Střední vzdělání s maturitní zkouškou je získáno úspěšným absolvováním vzdělávacího programu
 17 v tom v tom v tom šestiletého nebo osmiletého gymnázia, čtyřletého vzdělávacího programu denní formy vzdělávání, vzdělávacího dvouletého programu nástavbového studia denní formy vzdělávání nebo vzdělávacího programu zkráceného studia pro získání středního vzdělání s maturitní zkouškou. Zřizovatelé škol v rámci středního vzdělávání se opět řídí 8 školského zákona a jsou tedy stejní jako v předchozích dvou případech. V následujících tabulkách je znázorněn počet středních škol rozdělený podle jejich zřizovatele ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 a vývoj žáků středních škol ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013. Tab. č. 5: Počty středních škol podle zřizovatele ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Střední školy Celkem veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj neveřejný soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Z tabulky je zřejmé, že i v oblasti středního vzdělávání hraje hlavní úlohu stát. Asi 75% všech středních škol má za svého zřizovatele subjekt v rámci veřejného sektoru. Tím je pak nejčastěji kraj. Na rozdíl od předchozích vzdělávacích stupňů dochází ke zvyšování relativního poměru soukromých a církevních středních škol na celkovém počtu středních škol. Tento poměr činí cca 25%. 17
 18 v tom v tom Tab. č. 6: Vývoj počtu žáků středních škol ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Žáci Celkem veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR V případě středního školství je situace obdobná jako u základního školství. Počet žáků v průběhu let klesá, ale i v případě středních škol lze do budoucna předpokládat jejich narůst Konzervatoře Cílem vzdělávání v konzervatořích je dle 86 školského zákona rozvoj znalostí, dovedností a dalších schopností žáka, které získal v základním a v základním uměleckém vzdělávání. Konzervatoře dále poskytují všeobecné vzdělání a připravují žáky pro výkon náročných uměleckých nebo uměleckých a umělecko-pedagogických činností v oborech hudba, tanec, zpěv a hudebně dramatické umění. Vzdělávání v konzervatořích vytváří také předpoklady pro plnoprávný osobní a občanský život, pokračování ve vzdělávání a pro výkon pracovní činnosti. Stejně jako v případě středního školství je i v případě konzervatoří možné jejich dělení na stupně podle jejich zakončení. Podle 87 střední vzdělání s maturitní zkouškou je získáno úspěšně ukončeným šestiletým vzdělávacím programem v denní formě nebo osmiletým vzdělávacím programem v denní formě. Vyšší odborné vzdělávání v konzervatoři je získáno úspěšným ukončením šestiletého nebo osmiletého vzdělávacího programu. Zřizovatelé konzervatoří jsou stejní jako v předchozích případech a jsou upraveni v 8. Na následujících tabulkách je znázorněn jednak počet konzervatoří podle 18
 19 v tom v tom v tom v tom zřizovatele ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 a vývoj počtu žáku konzervatoří ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013. Tab. č. 7: Počty konzervatoří podle zřizovatele ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Konzervatoře Celkem veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Z tabulky je patrné, že vývoj počtu konzervatoří v ČR je víceméně konstantní, což je dáno povahou školy. Většina konzervatoří je zřizována krajem. Soukromé subjekty a církev zaujímají cca třetinový podíl. Tab. č. 8: Vývoj počtu žáků konzervatoří ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Žáci Celkem veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Od počtu konzervatoří se odvíjí počet jejich žáků. U nich je v poslední době patrný mírný nárůst. 19
 20 v tom v tom Vyšší odborné vzdělávání Cílem vyššího odborného vzdělávání je rozvoj a prohloubení znalostí a dovedností, které studenti získali v rámci středního vzdělávání, a poskytnutí všeobecného a odborného vzdělání a praktické přípravy pro výkon náročných činností. Úspěšným absolvováním akreditovaného vzdělávacího programu student dosáhne stupně vyššího odborného vzdělání. Vyšší odborné vzdělání je koncipováno jako tříleté v denní formě včetně odborné praxe. V případě zdravotnických oborů trvá vyšší odborné vzdělávání tři a půl roku. V případě vyššího odborného školství jsou zřizovatelé stejní, jako v předchozích případech. V následujících tabulkách jsou znázorněna data týkající se počtu vyšších odborných škol podle zřizovatele ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 a vývoj počtu žáků vyšších odborných škol ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013. Tab. č. 9: Počty vyšších odborných škol podle zřizovatele ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Vyšší odborné školy Celkem veřejný MŠMT jiný resort kraj soukromý církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Z tabulky je patrné, že změna v počtu vyšších odborných škol ve sledovaném období se mění pouze nepatrně. Dominantní pozici má veřejný sektor, v jehož rámci je nejčastějším zřizovatelem vyšších odborných škol kraj. Asi třetina škol je pak zřizována soukromými subjekty či církví. 20
 21 v tom v tom Tab. č. 10: Vývoj počtu žáků vyšších odborných škol ve školních letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Zřizovatel 2003/ / / / / / / / / /13 Žáci Celkem Veřejný MŠMT obec jiný resort kraj soukromý Církev Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Počty žáků vyšších odborných škol uvedené v tabulce jsou v daném období přibližně stejné. Malý pokles je způsoben především poklesem žáků v soukromých vyšších odborných školách a drobným snížením počtu žáků církevních vyšších odborných škol Vysoké školství Nejvyšším stupněm vzdělávací soustavy v ČR jsou vysoké školy. Ty upravuje zákon č. 111/1998 Sb., o vysokých školách a o změně a doplnění dalších zákonů (zákon o vysokých školách). Dle 1 jsou vysoké školy vrcholnými centry vzdělanosti, nezávislého poznání a tvůrčí činnosti a mají klíčovou úlohu ve vědeckém, kulturním, sociálním a ekonomickém rozvoji společnosti. Podstatným rozdílem od předešlých druhů škol je skutečnost, že vysoké školy jsou dle zákona považovány za právnickou osobu. Vysoké školy podle 2 vysokoškolského zákona uskutečňují akreditované programy a programy celoživotního vzdělávání. Tyto studijní programy se dělí na bakalářské, magisterské a doktorské. Podle toho, jaký typ studijního programu vysoká škola uskutečňuje, je možné je dělit na vysoké školy univerzitního a vysoké školy neuniverzitního typu. Typ školy je pak uveden v jejím statutu. Přičemž vysoké školy univerzitního typu mohou realizovat všechny typy studijních programů a s tím související výzkumnou, vývojovou, uměleckou nebo další činnost. Tyto vysoké školy se 21
 22 ve své organizační struktuře člení na fakulty. To, že se jedná o vysokou školu univerzitního typu, by mělo být většinou patrné již ze samotného názvu, ve kterém může takováto vysoká škola používat slovo univerzita. Vysoké školy neuniverzitního typu realizují bakalářské a někdy také magisterské studijní programy. Zároveň mohou provozovat s nimi související výzkumnou, vývojovou, uměleckou nebo další činnost. Organizační struktura těchto vysokých škol není tvořena fakultami. Vysoké školy se dělí na veřejné, soukromé a státní, přičemž ty se dále dělí na vojenské a policejní. Veřejné vysoké školy se zřizují zákonem. V následujících tabulkách jsou uvedeny údaje o počtech vysokých škol v letech 2003 až 2012 a počtech studentů rozdělených podle studovaných studijních programů v letech 2003až Tab. č. 11: Počty vysokých škol v letech 2003/2004 až 2012/ Celkem Veřejné vysoké školy Soukromé vysoké školy Vysoké školy vojenské a policejní Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Z tabulky je patrný vysoký nárůst soukromých vysokých škol od počátku sledovaného období do současnosti. Naopak počet veřejných a státních vysokých škol je víceméně konstantní. Tab. č. 12: Vývoj počtu studentů vysokých škol podle studovaných studijních programů v letech 2003/2004 až 2012/2013 Forma studia Typ studijního programu Studenti Celkem Prezenční studium celkem v bakalářských studijních programech
 23 v magisterských studijních programech v navazujících magisterských studijních programech v doktorských studijních programech Distanční a kombinované studium celkem v bakalářských studijních programech v magisterských studijních programech v navazujících magisterských studijních programech v doktorských studijních programech Zdroj: MŠMT, Vývojová ročenka školství v ČR Z tabulky vyplývá, že od roku 2003 do roku 2012 došlo k nárůstu počtu vysokoškolských studentů o více jak , přičemž většina z nich studuje v distanční a kombinované formě studia. Růst je patrný především u bakalářských studijních programů, což je patrně dáno rozvojem bakalářských studijních programů na úkor magisterských studijních programů, u kterých lze naopak pozorovat výrazný pokles počtu studentů. Tito studenti však po ukončení bakalářského studijního programu většinou pokračují v navazujícím magisterském studijním programu, u kterého je opět možné zaznamenat znatelný narůst. S rostoucím celkovým počtem vysokoškolských studentů dochází zároveň k nárůstu počtu studentů doktorských studijních programů, byť již k ne tak hojnému jako v případě bakalářských a navazujících magisterských studijních programů. 23
 24 2 Orgány veřejné správy Na tomto místě budou popsány jednotlivé orgány veřejné správy, jejichž činnost má dopad na úsek školství, a jejich úloha. Na prvním místě se bude jednat o MŠMT, které jakožto ústřední správní orgán má celostátní působnost a činnost školství zabezpečuje na té nejvyšší úrovni. Dále to pak bude Česká školní inspekce, orgány krajů a orgány obcí. 2.1 Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy má svůj zákonný základ stejně jako ostatní ministerstva v Ústavě ČR, konkrétně v čl. 79. Tento článek má však charakter blanketové právní normy a úpravu ministerstev ponechává na prováděcím zákoně, kterým je v tomto případě tzv. kompetenční zákon (zákona č. 2/1969 Sb., o zřízení ministerstev a jiných ústředních orgánů státní správy České republiky). Slovy kompetenčního zákona je MŠMT ústředním orgánem státní správy pro předškolní zařízení, školská zařízení, základní školy, střední školy a vysoké školy, pro vědní politiku, výzkum a vývoj, včetně mezinárodní spolupráce v této oblasti, a pro vědecké hodnosti pro státní péči o děti, mládež, tělesnou výchovu, sport, turistiku a sportovní reprezentaci státu. MŠMT dále koordinuje činnost ostatních ministerstev, jiných ústředních orgánů uvedených v 2 kompetenčního zákona a profesních komor. Koordinace činnosti se týká oblasti uznávání odborné kvalifikace a oblasti získávání kvalifikací v systému dalšího vzdělávání. Tomuto ministerstvu je podřízena Česká školní inspekce, o které bude dále v textu podrobnější zmínka. MŠMT plní úkoly stanovené v zákonech a jiných obecně závazných právních předpisech v rámci okruhu své působnosti (viz výše) a úkoly, které pro něj vyplývají z členství ČR v EU a dalších integračních seskupeních a mezinárodních organizacích. Ministerstvo dále zkoumá v rámci své působnosti společenskou problematiku, provádí analýzy dosavadních výsledků, provádí opatření s cílem řešit aktuální otázky. MŠMT dále zpracovává koncepci rozvoje odvětví školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy, jejímž cílem je stanovit směr budoucího směřování celého odvětví. Pro rozvoj celého odvětví je 24
 25 nezbytně nutný přísun dostatečného množství finančních zdrojů, proto MŠMT předkládá podklady nutné pro sestavení návrhů státních rozpočtů. Jednou z nejdůležitějších skutečností je fakt, že kterékoliv ministerstvo má tzv. zákonodárnou iniciativu, tedy právo předkládat Poslanecké sněmovně Parlamentu ČR návrhy zákonů. K řešení otázek, které nemusejí být upraveny zákonem, mají ministerstva dle čl. 79 odst. 3 Ústavy ČR pravomoc vydávat na základě a v mezích zákona vyhlášky. V čele MŠMT stojí ministr, který je členem vlády ČR. Ministr nese plnou zodpovědnost za chod Ministerstva. 2.2 Česká školní inspekce Česká školní inspekce, která je zřízená na základě školského zákona, je správní úřad, který má celostátní působnost. Z právního hlediska se jedná o organizační složku státu, která je účetní jednotkou. Česká školní inspekce se člení na ústředí České školní inspekce, které sídlí v Praze, a na jednotlivé inspektoráty České školní inspekce. V čele České školní inspekce stojí ústřední školní inspektor, jenž je do úřadu jmenován ministrem školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy. Působnost České školní inspekce je dvojího charakteru. Má jednak charakter evaluační, jednak charakter kontrolní. Účelem evaluace je zjišťování a hodnocení podmínek, průběhu a výsledků vzdělávání. Závěrečným výstupem provedené evaluace je inspekční nebo tematická zpráva. Smyslem kontrolní činnosti České školní inspekce je dohled nad dodržováním správních právních předpisů vztahujících se k poskytovanému vzdělání a školských služeb. Závěrečným výstupem je v tomto případě protokol. Česká školní inspekce může svoji inspekční činnost provádět v rámci své působnosti také na základě podnětů, stížností a petic nebo na základě žádosti na přiznání dotace podle zákona č. 306/1999 Sb., o poskytování dotací soukromým školám, předškolním a školským zařízením. 2.3 Obec Obec je prvním ze dvou celků, které vykonávají územní samosprávu ve školství. 25
 26 Při činnosti obce, jejímž cílem je zajišťovat školské služby, musí obec dbát zejména na soulad rozvoje vzdělávání a školských služeb se zájmy občanů obce, s potřebami trhu práce celkovým rozvojem území obce a musí zároveň dbát také na jejich dostupnost. Obec má povinnost zajišťovat podmínky pro plnění povinné školní docházky pro děti s místem trvalého pobytu na území obce a pro děti, které jsou umístěny ve školských zařízeních pro výkon ústavní výchovy nebo ochranné výchovy na území obce, a které nemají možnost vzdělávat se ve školách zřízených přímo při těchto školských zařízeních. Ke splnění této povinnosti obec může přistoupit buď tak, že zřídí základní školu, nebo zařídí plnění povinné školní docházky ve škole, která byla zřízena jinou obcí nebo svazkem obcí. Do pravomoci obce spadá také možnost školu zrušit. Obec má dále povinnost zajistit pro děti předškolního věku s místem trvalého pobytu na území obce a pro děti, které jsou na území obce umístěny v dětském domově, v posledním roce před zahájení povinné školní docházky podmínky pro předškolní vzdělávání. Za tímto účelem buď zřizuje mateřskou školu, nebo zajišťuje předškolní vzdělávání v jiné mateřské škole. Obec nebo svazek obcí má kromě výše uvedených školských zařízení, jejichž zajištění občanům bylo pro obec povinností, možnost zřizovat, resp. zrušovat: základní umělecké školy, školská zařízení pro zájmové vzdělávání, školská účelová zařízení nebo školská zařízení, která jsou obvykle zřizována jinými zřizovateli, prokáže-li obec pro takovéto zařízení dostatečné zdrojové zabezpečení, a to finanční, materiální i personální. 2.4 Kraj Kraj je druhým z celků, které vykonávají územní samosprávu ve školství. Při činnosti kraje, jehož cílem je zajišťovat školské služby, se musí dbát zejména na soulad rozvoje vzdělávání a školských služeb se zájmy občanů kraje, s potřebami trhu práce, s celkovým rozvojem území kraje a musí zároveň dbát také na jejich dostupnost. 26
 27 Kraj má povinnost zajistit občanům podmínky pro vzdělávání v rámci středního a vyššího odborného vzdělávání. Dále poskytuje podmínky pro vzdělávání pro děti, žáky a studenty s nezdravotními postiženími a znevýhodněními, vzdělávání jazykového, základního uměleckého a zájmového a podmínky pro výkon ústavní výchovy. Na základě výše uvedené povinnosti kraje kraj zřizuje: střední školy (výjimečně s vyučovacím jazykem národnostních menšin), vyšší odborné školy, mateřské, základní, střední školy a školská zařízení pro děti a žáky se zdravotním postižením, základní školy speciální, školy při zdravotnických zařízeních, školská výchovná a ubytovací zařízení a zařízení školního stravování, jazykové školy s právem jazykové zkoušky, základní umělecké školy, školská zařízení pro zájmové vzdělávání a dětské domovy. Dále má kraj možnost zřizovat další školská zařízení a školské služby, mateřské školy s vyučovacím jazykem národnostní menšiny či školy a školská zařízení, která jsou běžně zřizována obcí nebo ministerstvem, dokáže-li je kraj dostatečně zdrojově zabezpečit. 27
 28 3 Financování školství Existuje několik finančních zdrojů, z nichž je financováno bezplatné školství. U nás je v průměru na školství vydáváno cca 12% ze státního rozpočtu (138 mld. - rok 2013). Dalším významným zdrojem jsou finanční příspěvky obcí a měst, které jsou použity na provoz školních jídelen, hospodářský provoz školských zařízení apod. Obce tyto finanční prostředky získávají jako účelovou neinvestiční dotaci od státu, která je rozdělována příslušným krajským úřadem. Z celkových provozních výdajů je 60% až 65% použito na mzdy zaměstnanců. Část finančních prostředků mohou školy získávat také ze soukromých zdrojů. Financování jednotlivých skupin škol souvisí s tím, kdo dané školy spravuje. Z tohoto hlediska lze tedy rozlišovat: přímo řízené financování školství (především se jedná o vysoké školy), regionální školství (jedná se o všechny školy s výjimkou vysokých škol), ostatní přímo řízené organizace (Česká školní inspekce, Výzkumný ústav pedagogický, orgány veřejné správy ve školství, výzkumný ústav odborného školství) V kapitole 333 státního rozpočtu MŠMT jsou definovány závazné ukazatele ovlivňující financování, mezi které patří následující limity: limit počtu zaměstnanců, limit prostředků na platy, limit na ostatní osobní náklady, rozpočtovaný průměrný měsíční plat. Tyto závazné ukazatele jsou velice důležité, neboť MŠMT jejich prostřednictvím limituje prostředky na platy, stanovuje průměrný měsíční plat v resortu, reguluje zaměstnanost v příspěvkových organizacích resortu a organizačních složkách a garantuje meziroční navýšení platů zaměstnanců v resortu školství (Peková & Pilný, 2008). 28
 29 V souladu s instrukcemi MF je návrh rozpočtu kapitoly zpracován ve struktuře výdajových bloků a okruhů. Výdajové bloky a okruhy jsou specifickými závaznými ukazateli na rok Tab. č. 13: Výdajové limity MŠMT pro rok 2013 (v tis. Kč) Zdroj: MŠMT, 2013 SPECIFICKÉ UKAZATELE ROZPOČTU celkem rozpočet kapitoly MŠMT Celkem výdaje MŠMT Věda a vysoké školy v tom: vysoké školy výzkum, vývoj a inovace z toho: programy spolufinancované z EU a FM Výdaje regionálního školství a přímo řízených organizací Podpora činnosti v oblasti mládeže Podpora činnosti v oblasti sportu v tom: sportovní reprezentace všeobecná sportovní činnost Výdaje spolufinancované programy celkem mimo výzkum, vývoj a inovace Ostatní výdaje na zabezpečení úkolů resort v tom: OPŘO. Společné a účelově vyčleněné úkoly, programy kulturního dědictví státní správa zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce program podpory vzdělávání v jazycích národnostních menšin a multikulturní výchova sociální prevence a prevence kriminality protidrogová politika programy podpory příslušníků romské komunity mezinárodní konference, semináře Závazné limity pro odvětví školství pro rok 2013 jsou následující: limit počtu zaměstnanců (včetně EU a FM) osob mzdové prostředky celkem tis. Kč o prostředky na platy tis. Kč o prostředky na ostatní platby za provedenou práci/ ostatní osobní náklady ( OPPP / OON ) tis. Kč průměrný měsíční plat Kč Zdroj: Rozpočet kapitoly MŠMT na rok 2013, s
 30 3.1 Financování vysokých škol V této kapitole bude stručně popsána problematika financování vysokých škol v ČR. Vysoké školy mají, jak již bylo řečeno výše, charakter buď vysoké školy veřejné, soukromé, nebo státní. Podle toho se posléze liší způsob jejich financování. Dotace neinvestičních výdajů jsou poskytovány na studium akreditovaných studijních programů, na programy celoživotního vzdělávání a na výzkumnou, vědeckou, vývojovou, uměleckou a tvůrčí činnost. Dotace se vztahují zároveň na rozvoj VŠ, ubytování a stravování studentů. Výše dotace pro vysokou školu se odvíjí jednak od počtu studentů na dané VŠ, jednak od vědy a výzkumu na dané VŠ. Činnosti VŠ, u kterých tento systém nelze použít, jsou dotovány normativně. Pro spravedlivé a objektivní stanovení finanční částky dotace je určen soubor ukazatelů. Prvním z těchto ukazatelů je tzv. ukazatel A, který zahrnuje: počet absolventů, normativní počet studentů (součin přepočteného počtu studentů násobený koeficientem ekonomické náročnosti), přepočteného počtu studentů (nárůst nesmí překročit 3% stavu z předchozího roku), počet rozpočtových studentů v akreditovaných studijních programech. Do stavu přepočteného stavu studentů se zahrnují pouze studenti, kteří mají občanství ČR. Nezapočítávají se studenti s jiným občanstvím, kteří mají povinnost hradit náklady spojené se studiem sami a nezapočítávají se nově akreditované studijní obory. Normativní počty studentů se vypočítají ze součinu počtu studentů a koeficientu náročnosti dané vysoké školy. Pro účely těchto výpočtů jsou jednotlivé fakulty rozděleny do skupin dle oborové příslušnosti s přihlédnutím k ekonomické náročnosti konkrétního studia. Základní normativ je částka, která vznikne vydělením finančních prostředků určených pro vzdělávací činnost s normativním počtem studentů všech vysokých škol, vyjma škol uměleckých. Z ekonomické náročnosti studia na dané vysoké škole se vypočítá výše příspěvku na jednoho studenta. Vynásobí-li se výše základního normativu s koeficientem stanoveným pro určitou fakultu, získá se příspěvek na jednoho studenta. 30
 31 Dalšími ukazateli jsou např. stipendia pro studenty doktorských studijních programů (ukazatel C), pro studenty, kteří jsou občané cizího státu (ukazatel D), vzdělávací projekty, záměry a programy, které přesahují rámec jedné vysoké školy (ukazatel E), dotované projekty z Fondu rozvoje vysokých škol (ukazatel G), mimořádné rozvojové aktivity (ukazatel M), stipendia podle 9 odst. 3 zákona o vysokých školách (ukazatel S), ubytovací stipendia (ukazatel U) a dále mimořádné rozvojové programy vyhlášených ministerstvem (ukazatel I) (Peková & Pilný, 2008). V rámci své samosprávné působnosti veřejná vysoká škola hospodaří a nakládá se svým majetkem. Finanční prostředky jsou veřejným vysokým školám poskytovány MŠMT, které zároveň provádí kontrolu využití daných finančních prostředků. Veřejná vysoká škola hospodaří dle schváleného rozpočtu na jeden školní rok. Po uplynutí daného školního roku provádí a předkládá ministerstvu školství vyúčtování ve stanoveném termínu. Příjmy rozpočtu veřejné vysoké školy jsou: poplatky spojené se studiem, výnosy z majetků, dotace ze státního rozpočtu, jiné příjmy ze státního rozpočtu, ze státních fondů nebo z rozpočtů měst a obcí, výnosy z doplňkové činnosti, příjmy z darů nebo dědictví. Veřejná vysoká škola je povinná vypracovat každoročně výroční zprávu o hospodaření a předložit jí opět ve stanoveném termínu ministerstvu školství. Veřejná vysoká škola dále musí zřizovat následující fondy: fond reprodukce investičního majetku, rezervní fond na krytí ztrát v následujících účetních obdobích, stipendijní fond, fond odměn. Tyto fondy se vytváří z výsledku hospodaření po zdanění. Stipendijní fond se vytváří převodem poplatků spojených se studiem a fond reprodukce investičního majetku z odpisů hmotného a nehmotného majetku. 31
 32 Soukromá vysoká škola musí zajistit dostatečné finanční prostředky pro vzdělávací, vědeckou, výzkumnou, uměleckou a další tvůrčí činnosti. Část příjmů soukromé vysoké školy tvoří školné, které je vybíráno od jejích studentů. MŠMT je oprávněno poskytnout soukromé vysoké škole (s formou obecně prospěšné společnosti) dotaci na uskutečňování akreditovaných studijních programů, dále na program celoživotního vzdělávání a další spojenou činnost (Peková & Pilný, 2008). 3.2 Financování regionálního školství Financování a hospodaření v rámci regionálního školství se nachází v kompetenci institucí, které jsou pověřeny výkonem státní správy v příslušném školství. Jedná se o: obce, odbory školství krajských úřadů, MŠMT, Českou školní inspekci, Školskou radu a ředitele škol a předškolních zařízení. O výši rozpočtu jednotlivých škol či školských zařízení rozhoduje počet dětí ve školách Hospodaření škol Všechny základní a střední školy hospodaří jako příspěvkové organizace a musí se proto řídit zákony a vyhláškami o hospodaření s rozpočtovými prostředky státního rozpočtu ČR (Peková & Pilný, 2008, str. 324). Hlavním příjmem každé školy je dotace, kterou poskytuje MŠMT prostřednictvím příslušného OŠ KÚ. Když škola hospodaří s přebytkem, může si danou finanční částku ponechat pro další činnost na následující období, aniž by se jí krátily prostředky na další školní rok. Příspěvková organizace odepisuje investiční hmotný majetek a tím si vytváří zdroj finančních prostředků na nové investice. Provoz školy je zajišťován následujícími výdajovými položkami: mzdy, sociální a zdravotní pojištění, příspěvek do FKSP, energie, 32


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 309 Md. 147 (1987)
 522 A.2d 961
 HILLIARD & BARTKO JOINT VENTURE
 v.
 FEDCO SYSTEMS, INC. AND GARDINER & GARDINER, INC.
 No. 72, September Term, 1986.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 March 27, 1987.
 Stephan J. Boardman (James H. Hulme, Nancy S. Heermans and Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, on brief) Washington, D.C. and Patricia C. Hilliard, Gen. Counsel, on brief), Forestville, for appellant.
 Gail A. Nettleton, Washington, D.C. (Sadur & Pelland, Washington, D.C., on brief) for appellee Gardiner & Gardiner, Inc.
 Steven M. Levine, Washington, D.C. (Paul T. Cuzmanes and Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Washington, D.C., on brief) for appellee, Fedco Systems, Inc.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ. and MARVIN H. SMITH, Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland (retired), Specially Assigned.
 RODOWSKY, Judge.
 At issue here is when limitations began to run in this building construction case on claims asserted in arbitration by the owners against the architect and builder. In Frederick Contractors, Inc. v. Bel Pre Medical Center, Inc., 274 Md. 307, 314, 334 A.2d 526, 530 (1975), we held that "it is for the courts and not the arbitrators to determine the timeliness of a demand for arbitration...." Here the legal position of those defending the claims is that limitations began to run when the owners discovered that they might have one or more causes of action. The owners, although not disputing when "discovery" occurred, nevertheless assert that they have claims against the builder and against the architect which did not accrue until after "discovery."
 Appellants, Don Hilliard and John H. Bartko, as joint venturers (H & B), own an 80,000 s.f. building, constructed from preengineered, metal sections and containing both warehouse and office space, which is leased to the appellants' incorporated moving and storage business. Appellees are the architect, Fedco Systems, Inc. (Fedco), and the general contractor, Gardiner & Gardiner, Inc. (Gardiner). Fedco and Gardiner each contracted separately with H & B.[1] Fedco agreed to design and to supervise construction of the building, and Gardiner agreed to construct it. Each contract contained an arbitration clause. The party demanding arbitration was required to do so no later than the date by which the applicable statute of limitations would bar institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on the claim.[2]
 The building was plagued by leaks that were observed before construction was completed. Eventually, H & B sued both Fedco and Gardiner in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. That complaint alleged that the leaks were caused by negligence of Gardiner during construction, and by negligence of Fedco in designing the building and in supervising construction. H & B also alleged that Gardiner had breached its contract by failing to provide a watertight building. Fedco and Gardiner sought to compel arbitration of the claims against them, and the court ordered arbitration. Four months later H & B filed demands for arbitration. Fedco and Gardiner then filed the subject actions seeking permanently to enjoin the arbitrations because H & B's demands were barred by limitations. Judgment was for Fedco and Gardiner. The trial court found that H & B knew that the building leaked more than three years before the demands for arbitration were filed.[3] H & B appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed in an unreported opinion. We granted H & B's petition for certiorari which accepts fact-findings of the trial court and raises only questions of law.
 The following chronology is relevant.
 November 6, 1980  Punch list inspection of building by representatives of
 contractor and of architect and by a partner of H & B.
 November 7, 1980  Letter from Fedco to Gardiner itemizing "items ...
 noted as being defective or needing further
 attention[,]" including: "Repair multiple roof leaks
 in the warehouse area and single roof leak in the
 office area of the building."
 December 3, 1980  Inspection of building made by representatives of H &
 B, Fedco, and Gardiner. Resulting punch list includes
 two items relating to leaks in the building.
 Same  Date found by trial court as the date by which building
 was substantially complete and ready for occupancy.
 December 19, 1980  H & B is occupying office portion of building, storing
 some materials in warehouse portion, and paying
 electric bill.
 Same  Latest date, as found by trial court, by which
 substantial completion, substantial payment by H & B,
 and partial occupancy had all occurred.
 Same  Date argued by Gardiner and Fedco to be the latest date
 by which limitations began to run.
 January 12, 1981  Representative of Gardiner makes affidavit on
 requisition for final payment reflecting a balance of
 $163,978 on contract sum of $1,519,634.
 February 4, 1981  Fedco approves final payment to contractor.[4]
 February 18, 1981  Letter from Gardiner to Fedco confirming that all punch
 list items were completed.
 February 20, 1981  Letter of February 18 transmitted by architect to H &
 B.
 February 23, 1981  Letter from H & B to Fedco, with copy to Gardiner,
 stating that building continues to leak "from numerous
 points in the roof and around many of the skylights[,]"
 and through the walls. H & B states that Gardiner's
 work cannot be considered "final."
 February 27, 1981  Letter from Gardiner to H & B acknowledging
 responsibility for leaks that appear within one year,
 promising future corrective efforts, and requesting
 release of final payment.
 March 1981  During this month Gardiner receives final payment from
 H & B.
 January 8, 1982  Fedco issues certificate of substantial completion as
 of December 1, 1980. Certificate was backdated after
 architect determined from review of files that
 substantial completion had been achieved on or about
 December 1, 1980.
 February 16, 1982  Letter from Fedco to H & B reflecting that H & B had
 not paid balance of fee for architectural services.
 March 23, 1983  H & B sues Fedco and Gardiner in the Circuit Court for
 Prince George's County.
 August 26, 1983  Circuit Court orders arbitration.
 December 28, 1983  H & B files with the American Arbitration Association
 (AAA) demands for arbitration against Fedco and
 Gardiner.
 The parties have assumed that the "applicable statute of limitations," as the quoted words are used in the arbitration clauses, is Md.Code (1974, 1984 Repl.Vol.), § 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (CJ). It reads:
 A civil action at law shall be filed within three years from the date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a different period of time within which an action shall be commenced.
 With December 28, 1983, as the agreed date of commencement of the arbitrations, the issue is whether H & B's claims "accrued" before December 27, 1980. Conceptually those claims may sound in both contract and tort against Fedco and Gardiner respectively, unless, as Fedco argues, H & B has limited the claims it may assert in arbitration by the allegations of the circuit court complaint previously filed by it.
 I
 In this part we shall consider whether limitations bar a claim by H & B in contract against Fedco. But, first, we consider a procedural point raised by the architect.
 A
 Fedco points out that H & B's circuit court complaint filed on March 23, 1983, claimed against the architect in tort alone, and Fedco argues that no contract claim against it is involved in the arbitration. In its demand for arbitration, however, H & B described the nature of the dispute with Fedco as follows:
 Alleged breach of contract and negligence in the design and construction of warehouse leased to District Moving and Storage Company, Inc. as claimed in Law Number 83-1287, Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland with respect to which respondent has enjoined prosecution in Equity Number 83-0899, Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland.
 The H & B-Fedco contract submits to arbitration "[a]ll claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of, or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof...." The arbitration clause incorporates the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Rule 7 (Jan. 1, 1981, ed.), "Initiation under an Arbitration Provision in a Contract," provides that the notice of arbitration "shall contain a statement setting forth the nature of the dispute...." Id. at 6. Rule 8, "Change of Claim or Counterclaim," provides:
 After filing of the claim or counterclaim, if either party desires to make any new or different claim or counterclaim, same shall be made in writing and filed with the AAA.... However, after the arbitrator is appointed no new or different claim or counterclaim may be submitted without the arbitrator's consent. [Id. at 6-7.]
 Although H & B's demand for arbitration describes the dispute as including an alleged breach of contract, the complaint in the civil action to which that demand also refers does not plead a contract claim against Fedco. The issue of whether a demand in this form limits the scope of an arbitration is an issue within the very broad submission of the arbitration clause and is for the arbitrator to decide. See generally Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp., 298 Md. 96, 468 A.2d 91 (1983). Further, even if the demand for arbitration were interpreted to exclude breach of contract, the AAA Construction Industry Rules make certain provisions for amendment. Application of those rules is for the arbitrator.
 Consequently, our only concern under Bel Pre, supra, is whether any H & B claim, including breach of contract, can survive the bar of limitations when H & B admittedly knew of leaks in the building more than three years before demanding arbitration.
 B
 The contract between Fedco and H & B divides the basic services to be rendered by the architect into five phases: schematic design, design development, construction documents, bidding or negotiation, and construction phase-administration of the construction contract. Fedco's duties in the construction phase included endeavoring "to guard the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor" ( ¶ 1.1.14), and exercising authority "to reject Work which does not conform to the Contract Documents" ( ¶ 1.1.17). Paragraph 1.1.20 of the contract further provides:
 The Architect shall conduct inspections to determine the Dates of Substantial Completion and final completion, shall receive and review written guarantees and related documents assembled by the Contractor, and shall issue a final Certificate for Payment.
 The inspection to determine final completion and the issuance of the final certificate of payment did not take place until after December 27, 1980.
 H & B submits that limitations did not begin to run on any of its claims against the architect until Fedco had completed rendering all of the services which it had promised. Our cases have called this approach to a limitations issue the "continuation of events" theory. See Booth Glass Co. v. Huntingfield Corp., 304 Md. 615, 500 A.2d 641 (1985) (continuation of events theory does not defer running of limitations on owner's claim asserting negligence in original glass installation against subcontractor which thereafter had been endeavoring to correct the defective work); Waldman v. Rohrbaugh, 241 Md. 137, 215 A.2d 825 (1966) (medical malpractice; continuation of events discussed; discovery rule applied).
 H & B rests its argument on the two Maryland decisions which may have applied the continuation of events theory, Vincent v. Palmer, 179 Md. 365, 19 A.2d 183 (1941) and W.B. & A. Electric R.R. v. Moss, 130 Md. 198, 100 A. 86 (1917). Vincent involved a Great Depression era contract under which a mechanical engineer obtained first call on the plaintiff's services by promising the plaintiff ten percent of profits. The engineer did not specify when the plaintiff's share of the profits would be paid. Suit was brought after the arrangement had continued for almost seven years. We held that limitations did not run "until an accounting is made or [plaintiff's] services are ended." 179 Md. at 375, 19 A.2d at 189. In Moss the contract, which was between principal and agent for the latter to obtain a lease for the former on certain premises, also failed to specify date of payment. The agent initially obtained the lease in his own name and a month later assigned it to the principal. The critical date three years prior to suit fell after the lease was obtained by the agent but before the assignment. Because there were conflicting inferences from the evidence, limitations in that case was a question of fact and the action was remanded.
 H & B emphasizes the following statement from Moss:
 The general rule seems also settled that in the computation of the statutory period, in cases where there is an undertaking which requires a continuation of services, or the party's right depends upon the happening of an event in the future, the statute begins to run only from the time the services can be completed or from the time the event happens. Angell on Limitations, sec. 120; Wood on Limitations, 325-330. [130 Md. at 204-05, 100 A. at 89.]
 We have a number of reservations about the applicability of the holdings in Vincent and in Moss to H & B's claim here. Because the contracts for the rendering of services in those two cases were not specific as to when payment for services was due to be made, the opinions can be read to stand for no more than that limitations did not begin to run until payment was due. See, e.g., 1 H. Wood, A Treatise on the Limitation of Actions at Law & in Equity § 120, at 673 (D. Moore 4th ed. 1916) ("Under an ordinary contract for services for a stated period, whether long or short, no time for payment being agreed upon, the right of action accrues immediately upon the completion of the term of service."). Nor is it at all clear that the continuation of events theory postpones the running of limitations against the party for whom the services were rendered on that party's claim that the services as rendered did not conform to the contract. On the other hand, a trial court in New York has held that an owner's malpractice action against an architect was not barred by limitations where the architect, after final payment had been made to the contractor, participated in efforts attempting to correct a leaking roof. The court analogized to New York's "continuous treatment" exception to time of accrual which had been applied in medical malpractice actions. See County of Broome v. Vincent J. Smith, Inc., 78 Misc. 2d 889, 358 N.Y.S.2d 998 (1974).
 We need not resolve these questions in this case, however, because CJ § 5-108(b)-(e), the special statute of repose for claims against architects, professional engineers, and contractors, does not permit use of the continuation of events theory as H & B would have it applied here. For example, in its civil action H & B alleged malpractice by Fedco in the design of the building. Prior to December 27, 1980, H & B was on notice that a design defect might be causing the leaks. Absent the operation of the discovery rule or of a continuation of events theory, an owner's cause of action for improper design by architects accrues when the plans are finally approved. See Comptroller of Virginia ex rel. Virginia Military Institute v. King, 217 Va. 751, 759, 232 S.E.2d 895, 900 (1977). In this case the discovery rule likely postponed the start of limitations beyond the date of plan approval, but, under the trial court's findings, not to as late as December 27, 1980. By that date at the latest limitations had begun to run against H & B's accrued claims against Fedco by virtue of § 5-108.
 In relevant part § 5-108 reads:
 (b) A cause of action for damages does not accrue and a person may not seek contribution or indemnity from any architect, professional engineer, or contractor for damages incurred when ... injury to real ... property, resulting from the defective . .. condition of an improvement to real property, occurs more than 10 years after the date the entire improvement first became available for its intended use.
 (c) Upon accrual of a cause of action referred to in subsection[] ... (b), an action shall be filed within 3 years.
 (d) This section does not apply if the defendant was in actual possession and control of the property as owner, tenant, or otherwise when the injury occurred.
 (e) A cause of action for an injury described in this section accrues when the injury or damage occurs.
 The history of this provision elucidates its application.
 The predecessor to present § 5-108 was enacted by Ch. 666 of the Acts of 1970.[5] In the year preceding this enactment Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440, 258 A.2d 177 (1969) had applied the discovery rule to determine accrual of a cause of action for general statute of limitations purposes in a malpractice action against an architect. That same year Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88, 253 A.2d 904 (1969) had held the discovery rule governed accrual of a malpractice action against a professional engineer. The discovery rule had earlier been applied in Callahan v. Clemens, 184 Md. 520, 41 A.2d 473 (1945) to the accrual of a cause of action by an adjoining property owner against a contractor who had allegedly negligently erected a wall. It was clear that one purpose of Ch. 666 was to set a time limit after which the discovery rule could not operate.
 Chapter 666 was modified as part of the Code revision project when the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article was enacted, effective January 1, 1974. From a prohibition, "[n]o action ... shall be brought," the language was changed to read in relevant part:
 Except as provided by this section, no cause of action for damages accrues ... when ... injury to real ... property resulting from the defective .. . condition of an improvement to real property occurs more than 20 years after the date the entire improvement first becomes available for its intended use. [Md.Code (1974), CJ § 5-108(a) (emphasis added).]
 Present § 5-108(d) was subsection (b) in the 1974 enactment. The 1974 changes also added as subsection (c) the language now found in (e) ("A cause of action for an injury described in this section accrues when the injury or damage occurs.").
 The Revisor's Note explains the 1974 changes.
 This section is new language derived from Article 57, § 20. It is believed that this is an attempt to relieve builders, contractors, landlords, and realtors of the risk of latent defects in design, construction, or maintenance of an improvement to realty manifesting themselves more than 20 years after the improvement is put in use. The section is drafted in the form of a statute of limitation, but, in reality, it grants immunity from suit in certain instances. Literally construed, it would compel a plaintiff injured on the 364th day of the 19th year after completion to file his suit within one day after the injury occurred, a perverse result to say the least, which possibly violates equal protection. Alternatively, the section might allow wrongful death suits to be commenced 18 years after they would be barred by the regular statute of limitations.
 The section if conceived of as a grant of immunity, avoids these anomalies. The normal statute of limitations will apply if an actionable injury occurs.
 Subsection (c) is drafted so as to avoid affecting the period within which a wrongful death action may be brought. [Md.Code (1974), CJ at 182.]
 The Revisor's Note makes plain that § 5-108 was not intended to abrogate the discovery rule as it then applied to actions against architects, engineers, and contractors. Inasmuch as the twenty year cutoff was intended to address the problem of latent defects, the statute anticipated that suits could be brought more than three years after legally recognized injury, which was unknown to the plaintiff, had occurred. Prior to immunity arising after the twenty year period, "[t]he normal statute of limitations will apply if an actionable injury occurs." Thus, the language of present subsection (e), equating accrual with "when the injury or damage occurs," means when the injury or damage is discovered.
 Present subsections (b) and (c) were added by Ch. 698 of the Acts of 1979. Subsection (b) reduced the period before immunity to ten years for architects and professional engineers and Ch. 605 of the Acts of 1980 added contractors to that class. See Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Coupard, 304 Md. 340, 499 A.2d 178 (1985).
 The provisions of § 5-108 which are significant to H & B's claim are subsections (e) and (c). A cause of action by H & B for a defective condition of the building "accrue[d] when the injury or damage occur[red]," which means when the injury or damage was discovered. Upon accrual of that cause of action, suit "shall be filed within 3 years." § 5-108(c). The language of subsections (c) and (e) does not accommodate further postponing of the time for accrual of an H & B cause of action beyond the time of discovery and does not accommodate enlarging the three year limitations period following that accrual. Consequently, the continuation of events theory cannot apply to the claim against the architect.
 It follows that the sole H & B cause of action against Fedco for breach of contract which remains viable in the face of the limitations defense is one accruing on or after December 27, 1980. The record indicates that Fedco's final inspection occurred after that date. H & B's circuit court complaint included an allegation of negligent inspection. If the arbitrator concludes that a contract claim against Fedco is procedurally permissible and finds that the final inspection did not conform to the contract, H & B would be entitled to proven damages for that breach.
 II
 For the same reasons given in Part I B above, a cause of action in tort by H & B against Fedco would lie for any harm suffered by H & B that was proximately caused by Fedco's breach of a legally imposed duty occurring on or after December 27, 1980.
 III
 Analysis of H & B's claims against Gardiner for breach of contract has been greatly simplified by Antigua Condominium Association v. Melba Investors Atlantic, Inc., 307 Md. 700, 517 A.2d 75 (1986), which was decided after all but appellant's reply brief in the case now before us had been filed. At oral argument counsel for H & B submitted that Antigua resolved most of the issues in this case, and we agree.
 The Antigua litigation included claims by the purchasers of units in a residential condominium against the developer, as seller. The developer raised a limitations defense to the claims of those purchasers who had taken deeds more than three years before the institution of suit seeking damages for defects, including water leaking into the building. The standard contract of sale utilized by the developer contained the developer's promise to make necessary repairs provided notice of the defect was given to the developer within one year following settlement under the contract. We held that an action for breach of that provision (the Repair Clause) accrued within the three year limitation period, saying:
 We do not interpret the Repair Clause as simply a warranty of the condition of a unit or of the common elements as of the time of closing with a Unit Owner. Had Melba simply guaranteed the condition of the property as of the date of closing with a Unit Owner, any breach of that guarantee would necessarily occur at closing and, absent a special statute, the cause of action would accrue for limitations purposes when the breach was discovered. See Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 431 A.2d 677 (1981). Here, however, Melba additionally promised to repair if notified timely. The breach of that covenant to repair does not occur at closing or necessarily when notice is given. Conceptually, the ways in which one who has contracted to repair could breach that contract include repudiating the obligation before any notice is given, or, after being on notice of the defect, failing to undertake the repairs within a reasonable time, expressly refusing to repair, or, after undertaking to repair, abandoning the work before completion. [307 Md. at 715, 517 A.2d at 82-83.]
 General Condition 13.2.2 of the H & B-Gardiner contract in relevant part reads:
 If, within one year after the Date of Substantial Completion of the Work ... any of the Work is found to be defective or not in accordance with the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall correct it promptly after receipt of a written notice from the Owner to do so unless the Owner has previously given the Contractor a written acceptance of such condition. This obligation shall survive termination of the Contract. The Owner shall give such notice promptly after discovery of the condition.
 Fedco, albeit retroactively, certified December 1, 1980, as the date of Substantial Completion. By letter dated February 23, 1981, H & B gave written notice to Gardiner of the leaking condition of the building. Under Antigua, H & B's claim for breach of Gardiner's promise to correct the work pursuant to ¶ 13.2.2 of the General Conditions is not barred by limitations. Indeed, Gardiner's obligation to perform was subject to the condition precedent of notice and would not even arise until notice had been given. There is evidence that Gardiner acknowledged its obligation under this covenant. H & B's contract claim for breach of General Condition 13.2.2 is not barred by limitations.[6]
 IV
 All claims of H & B against Gardiner based on breach by Gardiner of a legally imposed duty which proximately caused harm to H & B as manifested by leaks in the building prior to December 27, 1980, are barred by limitations in view of H & B's knowledge of the leaks acquired more than three years before the demand for arbitration. H & B's dispute with Gardiner must, however, be arbitrated as to ¶ 13.2.2. If H & B is able to prove at that arbitration that Gardiner, on or after December 27, 1980, breached a legally imposed duty which proximately caused harm to H & B and if H & B can further prove that that harm is greater in degree than, or different from, harm which H & B otherwise would have suffered because of the breach by Gardiner, if any, of a legally imposed duty occurring prior to December 27, 1980, then H & B's claim against Gardiner in tort would not, to that extent, be barred by limitations.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO AFFIRM IN PART AND REVERSE IN PART THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AND FURTHER TO REMAND THIS CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY FOR THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY HILLIARD & BARTKO JOINT VENTURE, TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY FEDCO SYSTEMS, INC., AND FIFTY PERCENT BY GARDINER & GARDINER, INC.
 NOTES
 [1] The parties utilized standard forms of agreements suggested by the American Institute of Architects. Specifically, they are AIA document B-141 (January 1974 ed.) as to Fedco and, as to Gardiner, A-101 (11th ed. June 1977) and A-201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction (13th ed. August 1976).
 [2] Article 11 of the H & B-Fedco contract provides in relevant part:
 11.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of, or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.
 11.2 Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the other party to this Agreement and with the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
 The general conditions of the H & B-Gardiner contract which are relevant to the issues presented here provide:
 7.9 ARBITRATION
 7.9.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the Contractor and the Owner arising out of, or relating to, the Contract Documents or the breach thereof, ... shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.
 7.9.2 Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the other party to the Owner-Contractor Agreement and with the American Arbitration Association, and a copy shall be filed with the Architect. The demand for arbitration shall be made ... within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen, and in no event shall it be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
 [3] The arguments of all of the parties treat H & B's demands for arbitration as the events which stop the running of the statute of limitations as it is incorporated into the arbitration provisions. Consequently, we express no opinion concerning the effect, if any, on limitations of the earlier filing by H & B of a circuit court action against the contractor and architect.
 [4] The president of Fedco testified that the final inspection, which he did not make personally, was made in the "February-March time frame."
 [5] As it appeared in Md.Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.), Art. 57, § 20, § 1 of the enactment read:
 No action to recover damages for injury to property real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages incurred as a result of said injury or death, shall be brought more than twenty years after the said improvement was substantially completed. This limitation shall not apply to any action brought against the person who, at the time the injury was sustained, was in actual possession and control as owner, tenant, or otherwise of the said improvement. For purposes of this section, "substantially completed" shall mean when the entire improvement is first available for its intended use.
 [6] H & B makes an alternative argument on which we need not opine in view of our holding concerning General Condition 13.2.2. The argument relies on an analysis applied in President & Directors of Georgetown College v. Madden, 505 F. Supp. 557 (D.Md. 1980), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed in part, 660 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.1981) in a section of the District Court opinion other than that on which we relied in Antigua. Georgetown College is not a discovery rule case. H & B argues that its contract with Gardiner was entire and indivisible in that Gardiner's promised performance was to deliver a completed structure, and that, under Georgetown College, limitations first begin to run on final acceptance by the owner and not when undiscovered defective work was done.
 In its brief H & B describes its contract claim against Gardiner as one seeking damages because the building leaks. That is the basis of the damages claimed under ¶ 13.2.2 of the General Conditions. H & B has not argued that there is any difference in the relief allowable for a breach by Gardiner of ¶ 13.2.2 and that allowable for a breach by Gardiner of its promise to perform the work in the first instance.


type: wikipedia

text:
Audrey Lilian Barker, más conocida como A.L. Barker Pat Bourne nombre de casada, y Pat como la conocían sus amigos (St Pauls Cray, 13 de abril de 1918 – 21 de febrero de 2002) fue una novelista y cuentista británica.
 Biografía
 Aunque nacida en Kent, creció en Beckenham. Siguiendo las indicaciones de su padre, a los dieciséis años se vio obligada a abandonar los estudios para trabajar en una relojería. Durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, se incorporó al ejército y se casó con un militar, pero se separó asegurando que no estaba hecha para el matrimonio; lo que le interesaba era la literatura y el tiempo libre de que disponía lo dedicaba a escribir. Al finalizar la guerra entró a trabajar en la redacción de Amalgamated Press y como lectora en la editorial Cresset Press. En 1949 entró a trabajar en la BBC, donde permaneció durante casi treinta años (1949-1978).
 No fue una autora cuyas ventas alcanzasen cifras altas, pero disfrutó de unos lectores fieles y nunca le faltaron elogios de los críticos. Durante su vida, publicó diez libros de cuentos y once novelas, una de las cuales —John Brown's Body— fue finalista del Premio Booker en 1970. Con anterioridad había ganado la primera edición del Premio Somerset Maugham en 1947, con su colección de cuentos Innocents. Fue elegida miembro de la Royal Society of Literature en 1962.
 Fue, sobre todo, una maestra del relato corto. Mantuvo una prosa escrupulosa donde prestó especial atención y detalle a las relaciones humanas, las interacciones entre dos o tres personas y cómo las relaciones se desarrollan, a veces sorprendiendo a los propios protagonistas de sus historias que desconocían el destino que les aguardaba. Sobre su obra, Rebecca West (1967) alabó The Middlight, diciendo que era «el mejor libro escrito por una mujer en nuestro tiempo». Auberon Waugh, al leer por vez primera una obra suya (The Gooseboy, premio PEN Silver Macmillan), señaló: «no sé nada de A.L. Barker, excepto que escribe como un ángel y la amo». Y Robert Nye, sobre el conjunto de sus relatos, escribió, «[son] historias cuidadosamente compuestas como poemas [que] persisten en la mente». A.L. Barker se consideraba, ante todo, una escritora de relatos cortos, a los que llamaba «explosiones en la oscuridad».
 Obras publicadas
 Novelas
 Apology for a Hero (1950)
 A Case Examined (1965)
 The Middling (1967)
 John Brown's Body (1970)
 Source of Embarrassment (1974)
 Heavy Feather (1978)
 Relative Successes (1984)
 The Gooseboy (1987)
 The Woman Who Talked to Herself (1989)
 Zeph (1992)
 The Haunt (1999)
 Relatos
 Innocents (1947)
 Novelette, with Other Stories (1951)
 The Joy-Ride and After (1963)
 Lost Upon the Roundabouts (1964)
 Femina Real (1971)
 Life Stories (1981)
 No World of Love (1985)
 Any Excuse for a Party (1991)
 Element of Doubt (1992)
 Seduction (1994)
 Submerged (2002)
 Referencias
 Enlaces externos
 Control de autoridad: enlace permanente 79071999 al Fichero de Autoridades Virtual Internacional.
 Cuentistas del Reino Unido del siglo XX
 Novelistas del Reino Unido del siglo XX
 Escritores en inglés del siglo XX
 Nacidos en Londres