Representation bodies share final draft version of the plan of action with constituents

Fewer rows of blue-green chairs in committee room 3 of the Aula were filled on Thursday 25 April than in previous meetings. Five members of the Student Council attended, which is a smaller number than usual, explained Chair Jelle Stap shortly after the opening. “A small group of Student Council members has thoroughly familiarised themselves with the subject of social safety and can go into the subject in depth without the whole Student Council being burdened.” Not all members of the Executive Board are present either. Vice-Rector Magnificus Rob Mudde is absent because of personal circumstances.

Just like the two previous consultation meetings, the social safety plan of action dominates the agenda. Works Council (OR) Chair Ronald Kuil says that it has so many questions about the plan “that brevity in the answers is desirable”, while nodding at Rector Magnificus Tim van der Hagen and Vice-President Operations Marien van der Meer.

Confidentiality Agreement

Kuil wants to know how the Executive Board plans to gather input on the social safety plan of action “from people who are absent from their workplace. Such as TU Delft staff members who are on sick leave.” Van der Hagen does not have a clear answer, but he does say that the “plan of action is actually a misleading name”. He continues, explaining that “What we will submit to the Inspectorate on 15 May is neither a starting point nor an end point, but a midway point. It will be a living document that we will continually modify.” Van der Hagen believes that the term ‘change plan’ is more fitting. He goes on to say that 350 ideas for the plan of action have been received by email, in the (anonymous) suggestion box and on the Mentimeter online tool.

Cornel Thill, OR member, says that in the eyes of the OR, the feedback from former staff members who have left is also relevant. “Can you not exempt staff members to a certain extent (from the Confidentiality Agreement, Eds.) so that they can talk to Berenschot?” . Van der Hagen says that this is not necessary. “I understand what you mean. Look, they too are very welcome to make suggestions for improvement. This can be done outside the Confidentiality Agreement.”

More transparent

Both the Works Council and the Student Council believe that the drafting of the plan of action should be done more transparently, says Kuil a little later. “How will the Executive Board do this? Our proposal is to make the current 80% version of the plan of action public so that everyone can give their input.” Van der Hagen thinks that this would be fine in principle, but he does question the feasibility. “We will never be able to process all the feedback properly before the 15 May deadline,” he says.

After a short discussion about how as many TU Delft staff members and students possible should still be able to respond to the plan of action, OR member Herman de Wolff has an idea. May the Student Council and the Works Council present the 80% plan to the Personnel Committees and faculty student councils? “This version is after all already being shared on various fora and this will allow us to gather the input and pass it on to the supervisory committee.” The Executive Board gives its consent.

Lack of trust

Both Councils also raise the point of the lack of trust that they observe. Kuil says that they hear that “confidence in the process of compiling the plan of action is low” from their constituencies. He continues, asking “How does the Executive Board intend to regain that trust?” He also asks how the Executive Board is intending to look at the past. “Many of the people at the meetings on the plan of action need to close the door to the past in one way or another, instead of only looking to the future.”

Executive Board member Van der Meer says that she recognises this. “In the session where the Executive Board was present, this emerged very clearly. From now on we will reserve time to listen to deans, directors and staff members. Now is the time for healing and recovery. We need to act together to improve the social safety.”

During the meeting, the Student Council criticises the communications around the plan of action and the four meetings about social safety. “The meetings were all held during the exam period,” says Student Council member Pravesha Ramsundersingh. “I heard from a lot of students that they were thus unable to attend.” Van der Hagen says that this “was a great pity. We cannot go back unfortunately, but there will be more feedback rounds and thus new opportunities.” Student Council Chair Stap emphasises, like earlier, that the communication towards students needs improvement as this usually lags behind the communication to staff members. Van der Meer acknowledges this. “We have agreed to communicate better. We will take more care of this, especially on Brightspace.”