There is an ongoing row at the Nijmegen School of Management. Several conflicts between the faculty board and the participational bodies have put everyone on edge. Now there is hope that the assignment of a mediator will help to restore trust within the Elinor Ostrom building.

The Nijmegen School of Management is in troubled financial waters. If not for a vacancy freeze and various other crisis measures put in place after the summer holiday, the faculty was well on its way to a budget deficit of 9 million euros for 2024.

That is one of the sore subjects between the faculty’s participational bodies and the board. According to the bodies, the faculty lacks a long-term plan. ‘We want to be included in the decision-making process’, says Paul Driessen, chairman of the Representative Council. ‘What will we do to balance the budget until 2027? What are the possible scenarios? There is very little communication on these matters.’

Conflicts

In addition to the financial woes, there are two other issues on which the Faculty Joint Assembly (FGV) and the board do not see eye to eye. The first is the implementation of a new management structure, which is supposed to organise the various tasks and responsibilities of the Faculty Board, the directors, and the department heads; the second issue is about the promotion policies concerning assistant and associate professors.

The FGV assumed it would be able to weigh in on the issues – or at the very least offer advice, but the Faculty Board thought otherwise. That is why the issues were handed to the Executive Board, which ruled mainly in favour of the Faculty Board. According to the Executive Board, the FGV can only weigh in on a subsection of the promotion policy. Moreover, the FGV has no authority whatsoever when it comes to the management structure, except in those cases where changes in it would precipitate changes in the faculty’s regulations.

Back to square one

‘Over the past few months, we have had many talks regarding the new management structure’, explains Gaard Kets, member of the Representative Council. ‘Those talks were very constructive.’ Kets goes on to say that his colleagues from the participational bodies put a lot of time and effort into the discussions. ‘But after the Executive Board’s decision, the old plans from six months ago were back on the table.’

According to both Driessen and Kets, this is emblematic of the relationship between the board and the participational bodies. ‘We were back to square one’, Kets says. ‘That didn’t feel great, to put it nicely.’

‘We proposed appointing a mediator’

All of this did little to improve the trust of the participational bodies. Not only that, but FGV members question the decision made by the Executive Board. According to the FGV, supported by both an attorney and the Works Council, that decision was made after an incorrectly followed procedure.

That is why the FGV is considering additional steps against the Supervisory Board. ‘However, that is a very long and formal way. It would mean that the dispute committee would have to reach a verdict’, Driessen says. ‘That is something we would like to avoid. That is why we proposed appointing a mediator.’

Rubbed the wrong way

Said mediator is also supposed to help with repairing relations between the Faculty Board and the participational bodies. Because, according to emails circulating within the faculty, it is not just the issues themselves that lead to friction.

Interim Dean Michiel Kompier sent out an email on behalf of the board on December 11^th, which rubbed many employees the wrong way. One phrase in particular that did not sit well, was where the board describes how a board member calling in sick is intrinsically linked to ‘the way in which we work together within the faculty.’

For its part, the Representative Council wrote to all employees this week that it has concluded that “the way in which the Council and the Faculty Board have interacted over the past months, especially when it comes to the aforementioned issues, is no longer constructive.” Additionally, the Council “has lost faith in the FGV’s power to improve on the process” and they fear “further conflict and a further loss of trust.”

The Representative Council hopes that mediation can contribute to the restoration of healthy relations between the board and the participational bodies. However, it is not yet certain whether a mediator will be appointed. Interim Dean Michiel Kompier declined to comment on the issue when asked by Vox. What is certain, however, is that there will be another change within the board soon: Saskia Lavrijssen will take over the position of Dean, starting in March.

Translated by Jasper Pesch