Council should be involved in important decisions at Utrecht University

This op-ed was written by seven members of the Workers' Consultative Body: Bobby Baidjnath Misier, Jonas Folkers, Laurier Hendricx, Lenn Lamkin, Marcel Boer, Veronique Steinebach and Siebrig Schreuder. The views and opinions in this article do not necessarily represent those of DUB.

It is all over the news: the University Council has not agreed to the abolition of honours education as an austerity measure. This is certainly a bitter pill for the Faculty of Humanities to swallow. But the frame outlined in this UU news report, implying that the University Council is making things harder for a faculty that is already struggling to tighten the belt, is incorrect and, above all, unfair.

Of course, there will be hard knocks. Nobody can escape the impact of the monstrous budget cuts imposed on us by the cabinet. But this makes it even more important to get representative advisory bodies involved at an early stage. The considerations of the board should be substantiated so that everyone knows what we are choosing and why we are choosing it. This can only be done by including the council in the consideration of different scenarios. In an organisation such as a university, with so many different interests and viewpoints, this is essential to gain support.

At the same time, we read in the DUB article about this University Council meeting that "the decision-making process regarding the abolition of honours education was messy." Rector Henk Kummeling also acknowledged that "the preliminary phase concerning communication, participation and co-determination did not go as it should have". This nuance is extremely important but is not reflected in the UU news report. As a result, the University Council is more or less portrayed as the bad guy.

It is not the first time there has been a lack of communication, participation and co-determination in the decision-making process. The elimination of the University Corporate Offices (UBD), with far-reaching consequences for the management and operations as well as UBD's co-determination, followed a similar course. The Workers' Consultative Body was even accused of slowing down the progress. The closing times (only accessible to those with a Solis ID) over Christmas came out of the blue, resulting in a flood of complaints. Shortly afterwards, even more extensive closing times were announced for next summer, again without consulting the council. The decision was reported as a fait accompli on the intranet. And to top it all off, the abolition of honours education was prematurely presented as news on the intranet last week. No matter how urgent the task of saving money is, this is not the way to gather support for the measures.

Meanwhile, interest in co-determination has been waning for years and the turnout at the various elections is depressingly low. Policy staff have been hired to improve this, but the university's Executive Board and management should look at their own doorstep. As long as council involvement, the substantiation of decision-making, and the communication about intended measures, considerations and progress do not improve, people will become discouraged and think "it doesn't matter anyway." They will get the impression that our representative advisory councils are toothless tigers, even though they are anything but, as the University Council demonstrated last week. We hope this is a wake-up call.

We are convinced that the university's staff and students are very committed to the future of our education, research and student facilities. And we are convinced that the vast majority of them understand very well that we must look beyond our interests when it comes to making cuts on this scale. Let us take advantage of that. Let us be open, talk, communicate, and do so at the earliest possible stage. Let us have faith. Just as we are protesting side by side against the cabinet's policy, we must also endure this misery together, because it is what it is. And yes, that sometimes means having difficult conversations, sideways glances and long discussions. A knock on the door or perhaps a stalemate. We cannot always agree with each other. But that too is participation.

Op-eds are submitted to DUB and do not necessarily represent DUB's point of view.