Two groups of employees have each sent a letter to the faculty council and the faculty board, saying they do not support the plans. Approximately 65 staff members have signed the letters. They feel clustering the programmes is ‘exceptionally unwelcome’, they write. ‘Many people are just done with it’, the signer of one of the letters, who wishes to remain anonymous, says.
The cluster division is part of a new package of measures that was announced in summer of last year by the faculty board. Programmes will no longer be independent islands, but will be sorted into groups. These so-called clusters will have their own, more limited budget.
The board has proposed five clusters that should be implemented in September. Each group consists of bachelor and master programmes, an educational master, and a research master. In the plans, the department boards would be replaced by overarching cluster boards and coordinators. They would also add another administrative tier: the Directors of Studies. They will be responsible for one or more coherent programmes within a cluster.
Dissatisfaction
Earlier, the plans were announced as a means of cost-cutting. During informational meetings in March, however, the financial troubles were no longer named as a reason for the clustering, employees claim. The clustering now mainly serves as a way of making the arts faculty more sustainable, flexible, and competitive.
However, the worried employees do not think it has been adequately shown how clustering would achieve those goals. ‘Or even why clustering is the best form of organisation to achieve it’, they write.
The staff also say it is unclear how the reorganisation would be paid for, that there is no research on the effect of clustering, and that there has been no faculty-wide discussion about re-structuring the organisation.
‘People are deeply dissatisfied with this top-down type of management’, the signer says. ‘Top-down management is fine as long as faculty managers have authority and are capable. But many employees have the feeling that the people at the top lack qualification.’
One of the writers of the second letters refused to respond. ‘We are not prepared to make this public at the time, it is an internal matter. We first want to know what the faculty board will do (editor’s note: about the letter).’
Pressure
University Council member and professor by special appointment of modern history Antoon de Baets says he is very worried about the faculty plans. He asked the faculty board to intervene three month ago, but the board saw no reason to take action. ‘I’m supportive of the resistance and I will certainly call for attention to the plans in the University Council should the occasion arise’, he says.
De Baets sent an email to the faculty council and the faculty board, in which he calls the plans ‘iconoclastic’. ‘All these new advisory boards will only lead to more bureaucracy, not less; more pressure, not less. Ten years ago, UMCG was clustered and it is currently being de-clustered for exactly those reasons’, he wrote.
De Baets wants the board to withdraw the cluster plans. ‘The cluster I will end up in consists of fourteen programmes. It will be a complete disaster. There is no balance between the five clusters; that’s unfair.’
Faculty dean Gerry Wakker refused to respond at this time. She wants to discuss the matter with colleagues first. Faculty council chair Hans Jansen was unavailable for comment.
The new cluster division will be implemented in September.
UPDATE:
‘The faculty council has received responses from many sides of the faculty and is currently taking stock of the implications and possible alternatives’, says faculty council chair Hans Jansen. ‘In the meetings to be held on 21 and 28 April, this subject will be discussed extensively and we will be formulating an initial response. This might prove difficult because there are considerable differences among the planned clusters, which means there will be considerable differences among people in terms of their feelings about them. But the council takes its position in this seriously and will continue to do so.’
UPDATE 2:
Dean Gerry Wakker: ‘The responses have been partially inquiring and partially critical. The faculty board is taking the letters into consideration with the objective of incorporating some of the points raised into the definitive policy memo and to simply address the others either in meetings or in written form. We will of course be discussing it with the faculty council later in April.’
According to Wakker, the budget for the clusters will not be more limited, as the article states. ‘The budget will remain the same at the start’, she writes.
The arts budget. The faculty will be in the red over the next few years. A more efficient organisation should ensure that they need fewer staff to put the faculty back in the black by 2020.