Dear chair, dear council, dear CvB, 

We are asked to consent (p.63) to a structural investment to the Real Estate Organization (VGO) of initially 3,5M€ for the next three years, and  1,7M€ structurally after that – in times of budget cuts! The promised returns will far outweigh the investment; according to this document at least. 

But dear author of this memo, dear CvB, while I don’t want to cast too much doubt on the numbers, I want to address a currently widespread felt reality on the workfloor: the faculties have to shrink, the service units do not. In some rhetorically daring messages we see currently being circulated, this is sometimes also expressed in us versus them language: support staff against academic staff. The numbers may show a different reality, but in these populist times, these are dangerous sentiments and we must address them carefully. They will not be sufficiently addressed with an insistence on being factually correct. 

Then there remains the issue of all circumstances that are structural and beyond the control of the university: the lack of investment into higher education has widened the pay gap between public and private sector professionals. For good plans to work well, we need good people. A divided workfloor, where support staff is pitted against academic staff, does not help us in attracting talent.

As the Personnel Faction, we want to address these sentiments with care. On the one hand, the ROI of more than 10M€ structurally makes the business case of this investment a no-brainer. On the other hand, the memo does not really address whether the ROI will be directly put into research and education. Not addressed is also any consequence to possible scenarios where the ROI is not reached at all. Furthermore, there is no mention of the mechanisms for risk mitigation and accountability. I’m sure that the VGO has answers to all of these issues not addressed in the memo. But my point here is that we must be transparent and accountable: If we want to build trust to defend against the populist sentiments outlined above, as PF we believe that it is crucial to address these responsibility and accountability issues head on. And so, we make the following requests:

• We understand that any savings brought in by VGO are dependent on the compliance of the faculties and services (UB, CIT, US). Therefore we request strict guidelines towards the users of the buildings (e.g., compliance with a stricter m2/FTE norm). 

• We request that the CvB, together with VGO, makes sure that their human resources are used efficiently. 

• Is this money a blank cheque or will the CvB also continuously monitor and incentive externals to be let go of as soon as possible? 

• And will current employees be supported and stimulated to develop themselves to perform optimally, taking into account the customer focus and being able to benefit from productivity enhancing possibilities? 

• We also ask the CvB to report on the realized savings and for clarity on whether the realized savings indeed flow back into education and research. For instance by including reports on this within the TeRUG in balans program.

• Finally, to remain accountable, we would also like to ask the CvB to address the question of how potential risks will be mitigated:

  • What are the probable and impactful risks?

  • Who is the risk owner for each of these risks?

  • When will the council be informed of potential delays or failures?

  • What will be the unacceptable threats and who will pull the plug when the envisioned ROI looks to be missed? 

As the PF, we believe that addressing these requests will help not only provide sufficient confidence in the council to consent to a large sum of money directed to non-educational activities in times of budget cuts. It will also create accountability and a clear sense of purpose for this investment, allowing for a solid basis of trust between the students and staff of this university and the CvB.