Two weeks ago, the University Council unanimously voted against the board integration plans as proposed by the university’s Executive Board and the hospital’s leadership. The council has now published a 2.5-page explanation of its decision, showing that the “no” did not come out of the blue. Much of the reasoning echoes a previous letter, dated 25 June 2025, in response to earlier integration plans. The implication is clear: the Executive Board didn’t do much with the earlier feedback, and the concerns raised then remain largely valid today.
Dual role
One concern is the dual role of the hospital president, who would hold two board positions: one on the five-member “Executive Council” (responsible for MUMC+) and one on the MUMC+ Executive Board, including both the hospital and FHML. “This creates a fundamental conflict of roles and gives this person, and the MUMC+, a disproportionate amount of influence over the whole organisation.”
There is also the risk that a health-focused university could come to dominate the university’s non-medical faculties. This could lead to less focus on non-medical research, reduced influence of other faculties on strategic decisions and “possibly fewer investments”. “It could change UM’s culture and identity.” The university’s current governance structure protects the interests of both faculties and service centres, “even though FHML is much bigger than the others”.
At the MUMC+ level, the council sees a similar risk: a potential disruption of the current – relatively equal – relationship between the hospital president and the FHML dean, to the disadvantage of the latter.
The letter also warns that the proposed integration would create a large gap between the new Executive Council and non-leadership staff, at a time when direct contact is essential to hear the views of faculties, service centres and students on “strategy development and decision-making”.
Together
Despite its criticism of the current plans, the University Council sees the importance of a closer relationship with the hospital. This applies to both practical matters – such as access to buildings, use of bike sheds and car parks and reducing bureaucracy – and broader challenges in health research. “You need to make strategic decisions that are aligned with each other”, explains Teun Dekker, chair of the University Council, to Observant. “If, as a hypothetical example, UM wants to use one type of [extremely expensive] scanner and the hospital prefers another type, it makes sense to agree on a unified approach together.”
The letter stresses the importance of exploring alternative forms of cooperation “together” – not just with the University Council, but also with stakeholders such as FHML institute directors as well as the wider university community. Many “feel they have not been adequately informed or given the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution”.
The University Council also doubts whether a board integration is really necessary to achieve the stated goals. Much, if not all, “could be achieved in other ways, with fewer consequences for the organisation and lower risks”. Alternatives were not sufficiently considered. The council is clearly unimpressed with the process so far and calls for a thorough evaluation. “The situation that we are in now, should not repeat itself.”
But the council is not shutting down the conversation, Dekker says. “What can we learn from this? How can we, after a period of reflection, move forward together with the Executive Board, which believes in these plans and has invested a lot of time and energy in them?”