After much insistence the Student Council and Works Council were given the right to advise on the cutbacks that TU Delft will roll out up to and including 2028. It is expected that the advisory letters will be shared this week at two representation meetings. What do they say?
The employee participation council meets monthly with the Executive Board in the Auditorium, on the left in the photo. (Photo: Lucas de Leeuw)
This year, Rector Magnificus Tim van der Hagen promised that the cutbacks would be policy-oriented options instead of the so-called cheese slicer method. Despite this, both the Works Council and the Student Council believe that the economising plans lack strategic choices. In its advisory letter, the Works Council repeats the cheese slicer method. The Council says that this method ‘does not acknowledge the various contributions that faculties and services make to TU Delft’s future vision’. The letters were sent in November, but will be discussed again at the meetings between the Executive Board and the representation bodies this week. Read more about this in the box below.
The lack of strategy is not the only subject where the advice of both Councils overlap. They both write in their letters that they should have been involved in the economising process earlier. The Executive Board was initially not intending to solicit the advice of the Works Council and Student Council about the austerity plans. This was only to be done with the internal representation bodies, Van der Hagen said at a previous Works Council meeting.
The right to advise only came after the decision was taken
The Works Council and Student Council were granted the right to advise in October. But by then the Executive Board had already taken a decision on the austerity plans. The Student Council’s advisory letter therefore states that ‘The Student Council is of the opinion that its advice will have no real influence on the completed austerity plans’. The representative body dedicates three pieces of advice about the lack of co-determination. The Council members want the Executive Board to assess how it came to the conclusion that the right to advise was not needed, while the austerity plans impact four areas.
The advisory letters were sent on 10 November and are expected to be discussed at two representation bodies’ meetings. The Student Council letter was a point on the agenda of the meeting between the Student Council and the Executive Board on Wednesday 10 December. The Works Council letter was discussed on 13 November at a closed meeting, but the Works Council Chair, Ronald Kuil, expects that the advice will also be referred to at the discussions about the 2026 budget. The Executive Board will discuss this subject with both the Student Council and the Works Council at the joint meeting on Thursday 11 December.
Concerns about academic success and workload
Neither Council see any cohesion between the austerity plans. The faculties and services – both of which were tasked with reducing costs by 10% without forced dismissals – were delivered in various formats and vary widely in quality. The representation bodies do have different opinions about the advice they give here. The Works Council wants the Executive Board to adopt a much clearer management role in the following steps. It believes that a specially appointed ‘cutbacks coordinator’ could help. The Student Council believes that the lack of cohesion makes it more difficult to assess the consequences that the austerity measures will have on the education and research. Its members thus advise the Executive Board to have the faculties and services carry out impact assessments targeted on education and students.
Central cost items remain too much out of sight, according to the Works Council
There are also differences. One of the Student Council’s major concerns is about scrapping student assistants, which several faculties are intending to do. The Student Council wants to know which student assistant positions will disappear as the faculties’ austerity plans do not state this clearly. The Student Council also urges keeping Student Assistants in first year subjects. The advisory letter states that ‘Their approachability helps promote the study success rate’.
Public meetings
The Works Council’s advice mostly addresses the consequences for research, workload, and TU Delft as an attractive employer. The Works Council misses the financial checking of the plans and recommends involving the Finance Department as a matter of course. Further, the Works Council believes that the current cutbacks are too one-sided. Only the faculties and services submit plans while the central costs, such as strategic programmes, are left out. They recommend the Executive Board to also consider these expenditures and to carry out a centralised analysis to identify areas of joint savings.
The Works Council also believes that the primary process – education and research – will be more heavily impacted than the support services. It urges for the division of the cutbacks to be reconsidered so that the primary process remains better protected and the core values of TU Delft retained.
Whether the advice of the Student Council and the Works Council members will have any impact remains to be seen. Both the meetings on Wednesday 10 December and Thursday 11 December were public and are open to students and staff members.
News editor
Annebelle de Bruijn
Do you have a question or comment about this article?
a.m.debruijn@tudelft.nl
Comments are closed.