To be clear, the council was not voting on the proposed integration of the hospital and the university as a whole, but specifically on the integration of FHML and MUMC+. The Faculty Council does not support these integration plans, as the one-and-a-half-page-long letter makes clear. It lists six main objections, arguing that “the position of FHML and its core academic tasks – teaching and research – are insufficiently explained or protected” in the plans. In other words, the council fears the faculty will be overshadowed following the integration.
Key concern
A key concern is the role assigned to the FHML dean. Under the current plans, the dean would become vice-chair of the new five-member MUMC board, while the hospital president would become chair. This is unacceptable, Faculty Council chair Iwan de Jong told Observant last week: “The two should be given equal roles.” According to the letter, the council is also concerned that placing the dean’s legal powers and duties regarding teaching and research under the new board would weaken the dean’s position. Furthermore, the council is unhappy with the proposed Education and Training Committee in the new MUMC+, as the plans do not specify what exactly this body entails or how much of a say it will have. “This is inadequate for a body responsible for protecting FHML’s core academic tasks.”
The council also questions how disagreements within the new MUMC board will be resolved. According to the plans, the Executive Council of the university and hospital would step in, but the hospital president is also on that board. This “raises questions about the independence of the decision-making process”.
Not fundamentally opposed
Finally, the council again criticises the lack of clarity regarding staff and student representation. According to the letter, the plans do not mention the FHML Council at all, and input from students, academic staff and support staff “is insufficiently guaranteed”.
Like other representative bodies in the hospital and university, the FHML Council is not fundamentally opposed to close collaboration between hospital and university, or between faculty and hospital. On the contrary, it recognises the importance of such cooperation “for research, teaching and patient care”. The Faculty Council does not rule out administrative integration of the university and the hospital – just not in the form currently proposed.
Behind closed doors
One lingering question is why the democratically elected council made its decision behind closed doors. Neither the public nor the press were allowed to attend the meeting, nor even the Faculty Board. Various council members, both staff and student representatives, stress to Observant that this was not due to safety concerns; they simply wanted to reach a collective decision freely and calmly. However, this seems to conflict with the core democratic principle of transparency. Should voters not know what their chosen representatives contributed to the discussion?
According to council chair Iwan de Jong, there’s no need to read too much into it. “We originally wanted to meet outside the council meeting, but that proved too difficult to schedule. As the agenda for the meeting was light, this was just convenient. Besides, this letter is our way of communicating with our constituents.”