Four objections are listed in the letter, which is addressed to the Faculty Council of Health, Medicine and Life sciences and the University Council. Both bodies have an important say in the integration process and may yet put the brakes on it in the coming period.
What particularly concerns the scientific directors is the dual role of the hospital director, currently Helen Mertens. Not only does she occupy the most important administrative position in the MUMC structure of hospital and FHML, but she will also become co-chair, just like the rector, in the central Executive Council that will rule over the entire integrated institution of UM and hospital. There are increasing complaints that the composition of these ‘structures at the top’ is flawed, including in almost all faculty council meetings that Observant has recently attended. Is such a dual role desirable? Is it legally possible? The directors of the research institutes also question this.
What if there are problems and people want to escalate (i.e., to the Executive Council) an appeal? Then they will encounter the same person: the head of the hospital. This puts pressure on the internal checks and balances, and the escalation ladder “is effectively being undermined”, according to the authors of the letter. Not to mention the demanding nature of the jobs. Can they be performed with sufficient attention, independence and quality, they wonder.
Vice-chair
Furthermore, the institute directors propose that the FHML dean should not be made a ‘less important’ vice-chair in the MUMC, as is currently planned, but co-chair (together with the hospital director, as in the Executive Council). According to authors of the letter, this equality is a must if you say that you want to make decisions “jointly” and become “stronger together”.
Another point: in an important consultative body (the so-called GMO, the Integrated MUMC+ Consultation), academic input only comes via the vice-dean of education; the directors believe that researchers should have a much stronger voice here.
Finally, there is the issue of finances. They complain subtly, but in no uncertain terms, about the fact that some of the underlying financial documents have not been shared with the community. How are the finances set up and what are the financial consequences for healthcare, education and research?
The directors are not opposed to the integration on principle. They are “positive in principle” about it and recognise “the further development and strengthening of both institutions”.
Consulted
The question remains why this letter was sent at this stage of the plans. Were these directors, who are not insignificant figures within the faculty, not consulted in recent months? Or were they asked for advice, but insufficient action was taken? At the time of publication, Observant had not yet received an answer to this question. The University Council will discuss the integration in a public meeting on Wednesday, 25 February. Whether they will vote on it then is highly questionable. The FHML Council will discuss it (again) in March.