When asked why the boards want to integrate, Rector Pamela Habibović gave two examples. The first: a joint “valorisation strategy”. What does that actually mean? Well, a strategy to create impact, whether socially or scientifically. Any concrete examples? None were provided – Simone van Trier, the same moderator brought in to lead previous Ask Me Anything sessions on the integration, didn’t press for specifics. Habibović’s second example was also unclear, referring to “the further development of the Brightlands Health Campus, together with the municipality and province”. But aren’t there already well-supported initiatives on that campus? Is administrative integration really needed for this?
One staff member asked about the costs incurred during the preparation phase. “It’s a relatively small amount of the overall budget”, replied Meindersma, vice-president of UM. “Mostly consultancy and legal costs, but they’re very manageable. It’s not excessive.” The staff member was left with that response; Meindersma didn’t give a precise figure.
Deliberation
Van Trier asked Jan-Tjitte Meindersma what would happen if the representative bodies rejected the integration plans. This is a crucial question for both the UM University Council and the MUMC Works Council: do the boards take them seriously? Meindersma didn’t say that the plans would be abandoned. Instead: “Both boards and the Supervisory Boards would need to deliberate.” What does he mean by “deliberate”? If the Executive Board decided to press ahead despite a “no” from the University Council, a “dispute” would arise, requiring involvement of the Supervisory Board, according to the University Council’s official regulations – something nobody wants. But what is Meindersma’s view on that?
Towards the end of the session, Helen Mertens, president of the hospital’s Executive Board, was asked whether a separation would still be an option if the integration did not work out as intended. “Yes, but would it be sensible?” Mertens replied. There would have to be “very good reasons” to revert to the old setup.
Legal entities
To become more effective, the boards said, joint strategic and financial decisions need to be made. That’s why they have selected four themes – Europe and the world; a healthy society; groundbreaking technologies and innovation; and sustainability – that will receive additional funding through “innovation budgets”. But it is still unclear what these budgets will look like or where the money will come from.
Another key point: Meindersma made it clear that two legal entities will remain (“so it’s not a merger”), each with its own budget, annual report and collective labour agreement. In other words, he explained, the five-member “Executive Council” that will lead the organisation will have a “dual responsibility”. There will be a “consolidated budget”, created by “simply adding the two together”.
Dual role
Mertens, as president of the hospital will sit on the top executive board of this new integrated organisation and also chair the integrated UMC, which includes the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life sciences. Mertens defended this “dual role”: “At this stage, there’s no other way to organise it. To make decisions as the executive board of such a large organisation, you need to know what’s happening in the hospital, what challenges exist, and the same applies to how the organisation presents itself to the outside world.”
Speaking of challenges at MUMC+, one staff member wanted to know how the boards plan to address the “social safety report” published last December, which revealed the hospital’s less flattering side: frontline staff reported feeling fear, a lack of social safety and a sense of distance from leadership. Mertens said that a plan to address these concerns will be published on 23 February. Habibović added that lessons could be drawn from the university’s approach to social safety.