The meeting was a reopening of the meeting that was suspended last December after a long discussion. At the time, the University Council could not vote for or against the budget because it saw a lack of grip over the situation. First, the Executive Board had to address those concerns.
Care
So the University Council and the Executive Board sat down again on Wednesday morning. The same concerns that were shared last December were discussed again: how does the Executive Board ensure that there are no unpleasant financial surprises as there were with the first management report of 2024? When will units come up with strategic personnel plans? What about the improvement of the financial column after the recent Improfin report? Why is an increase in second and third funding flows expected? When will the 'building blocks' become more concrete? And: how do you involve the entire UT community in the major austerity task?
In a nutshell, what the University Council wanted: make sure you have realistic figures in your budget, link concrete deliverables to your financial measures and be transparent about the decisions you make.
Commitments
The Executive Board gave commitments to every concern mentioned by the University Council. Units that are in danger of colouring outside the lines financially must come up with an action plan in good time. The UT will use 'bandwidths' to calculate the effects of, for example, a 5 percent lower intake. There will be an action plan to strengthen the financial column, with concrete objectives. The so-called building blocks – the financial measures that are given priority – are also being made concrete and the Executive Board has announced that it wants to inform the community more transparently. And the expectations with regard to the second and third money streams are being set more realistically – albeit in the multi-year plans.
In summary: the Executive Board wants to work on the points and indicated that it will do so. The University Council hopes to see that work reflected in the upcoming management reports and the Spring Memorandum – the multi-year financial framework.
'Very worried'
The meeting eventually led to a vote. Thirteen of the eighteen members of the University Council voted in favour of the budget, even though the concerns are far from vanished. Others voted against, with a few giving an explanation. Employee Catalin Popa said he was 'highly concerned', especially about the expected income from the second and third money streams. 'There is a brain drain due to researchers leaving, competition for research funding has increased. But in the meantime, this budget is business as usual. It does not reflect the actual situation. That is why I, in good conscience, cannot agree to this budget.'
Employee Laura Vargas called the choice between agreeing or not agreeing to the budget 'a choice between bad and very bad'. 'The consequences are huge if we vote against. So this is not a free choice.' Eline Marsman referred to the budget discussion of the previous year. 'Even then there were promises. Even then, we had our backs against the wall, that this university cannot continue without an approved budget. I have to approve something again that I don't know if it will happen. If you understand the concerns and agree with us, why hasn't anything been done about it yet? It feels like we are in the same phase as last year. I'm disappointed.'
As University Council chairman Herbert Wormeester ended the meeting, to the Executive Board: 'There is work to be done. At the same time, that's why you were hired.'
