Major division in council, but reorganisation moves forward

Following a tumultuous meeting on 31 March, the Participation Council approved the Executive Board’s reorganisation plan by a majority vote. What happens next?

The Hanze University Participation Council (HMR) is deeply divided. While a majority voted in favour of the restructuring plan proposed by the Executive Board (CvB), the AOb faction opposed the plan and announced legal action. Their objection: students were allowed to vote, which, according to the AOb, breaches regulations. So, what happens now?

‘Exemplary process’

HMR Chair Bartele van der Meer, a member of the Independent Realists faction that approved the CvB’s reorganisation plans, expressed pride in how the council managed the process. ‘Apart from the legal threat, I found the decision-making around the restructuring plan truly exemplary. We started with an informational session, followed by an exploratory meeting, and finally a decision-making meeting. In the meantime, we closely listened to our constituents.’

Van der Meer acknowledges the sensitivity of the topic. ‘We took a strong stance. As the HMR, we wanted to support the process but with clear conditions. Particularly concerning cultural change and the positions of specific programmes like Minerva and Lucia Marthas, we voiced significant criticism. We also had reservations about appointing interim managers who were also the intended directors. Based on all the feedback, we formulated concrete points needing clarity and discussed these extensively with the Executive Board.’

According to Van der Meer, this approach resulted in significant commitments from the CvB. ‘Ultimately, we decided: the HMR will provide advice on the interim managers’ tasks, and we want the outcomes of their work to be presented for approval. So yes, that acts as a kind of emergency brake. If the results aren’t satisfactory, we won’t approve them. This allows for design freedom but also ensures oversight.’

‘A different approach’

Hanze Chair Dick Pouwels described the approach as ‘transparent and incremental’. ‘We deliberately chose a process of constant feedback and evaluation. That’s the agreement we made with the HMR: we will continue this approach in the coming months, precisely as we have done so far. We won’t suddenly switch paths or alter what’s already agreed upon.’

At the same time, Pouwels acknowledges that not everyone is enthusiastic. ‘There is uncertainty within the organisation, not just from the AOb, but also from other staff members. Some people find the changes intimidating. It’s naturally the Executive Board’s responsibility to take these concerns seriously. We’re engaging with staff who have expressed criticism, including those who have sent us critical but highly substantive and valuable letters. We don’t just want to broadcast messages; we genuinely want to listen.’

According to Pouwels, it’s crucial that staff feel their contributions matter. ‘I hope they recognise our sincerity, our availability, and our commitment to fulfilling promises. We don’t want to impose a system, but rather develop something collectively supported. If something doesn’t work, we’ll adjust. That’s modern leadership: remaining agile while staying on course.’

‘Irresponsible behaviour’

For Van der Meer, the AOb’s legal action didn’t entirely come as a surprise, but the manner in which it unfolded did. ‘I never felt the AOb faction genuinely wanted to go through this process. I believe their goal was to delay the decision. That’s permissible; it’s their right. What I find troubling is their eventual refusal to commit to the collective process. They introduced new objections at the last minute, despite our agreement not to do so.’

What particularly irritates him is the difference in tone inside and outside the council meetings. ‘They communicated externally through a Teams channel with activist rhetoric, while adopting a different tone during meetings. I consider this irresponsible behaviour. It has torn apart the HMR at a moment when unity was essential.’

Nevertheless, Van der Meer remains optimistic about the overall picture. ‘The Executive Board has conceded on nearly all points. Interim evaluations will be held during the interim managers’ assignments. Unfortunately, the CvB refuses to abandon the idea of appointing prospective directors as interim managers. However, they have agreed to implement additional safeguards. This demonstrates that the CvB takes our objections seriously.’

Facing reality

Both Van der Meer and Pouwels are pleased with the approval and ready for the next steps. If the AOb succeeds in its legal proceedings, the entire process could stall. However, Pouwels isn’t worried. ‘We’ve also sought legal advice and are confident this decision will hold.’

‘I believe we can genuinely make progress in the coming months. We want to achieve this collectively with the Participation Council and staff members who are still hesitant. I hope the organisation recognises a new way of working, one centred around openness and collaboration.’

Van der Meer agrees. ‘Of course, as the HMR chair, you hope for a unanimous decision. But I believe we have run a thoroughly respectable and substantive process as a council. There was engagement, there was influence. And that’s precisely what participation should embody.’

Potential legal battle

‘Understandably, others were startled by our announcement to challenge the decision legally,’ says Peter Klomp, one of the five AOb members in the HMR. ‘But I think it had long been clear that we were considering it. Actually deciding to proceed with it, though—that was new, even for us, as we made that decision during the meeting itself.’

According to Klomp, this happened shortly after the AOb realised that the Executive Board was unwilling to accommodate them on two crucial points. ‘We believe the interim managers must be independent; therefore, they cannot also be the intended directors. Additionally, the proposed top-level structure (the organisation of Hanze into nine clusters, ed.) should be a starting point in the next phase, not necessarily the outcome.’ Klomp notes that while the CvB is generally cooperative, they remain inflexible on these critical issues from the AOb’s perspective.

The AOb has asked their lawyer to investigate whether the CvB has made any additional procedural errors in dealing with the HMR. Klomp is unsure about the next steps if the AOb loses a potential legal battle. ‘Right now, the Executive Board is just forging ahead. And if that remains the case, it would be regrettable for the staff.’