Transparency, confidentiality and budget cuts. This is how the university council operates

Cutbacks are not always discussed publicly by the university council. But they do discuss bringing back chocolate milk in the vending machines. Does the council have its priorities in order? Yes, says university council member Katya Ivanova. She explains how the participation body works.

On 12 May, Univers published a column titled De universiteitsraad moet bezuinigingen in de openbaarheid bespreken (The University Council must discuss budget cuts in public). While I fully agree with the sentiment expressed in the title, and I appreciate that Antje Beers took the time to attend a University Council (UC) meeting and reflect publicly on it, the piece offers an account of the Council’s discussions that is somewhat incomplete – possibly due to its focus on a single plenary meeting.

In this response, I aim to provide additional context on how the UC operates, particularly in relation to budget discussions. I write based on my personal experience as a UC member over the past three years, not as a spokesperson for the Council as a whole.

Priorities

Each year, in the second quarter, the UC receives and discusses the FiRMA. In short, the FiRMA outlines how much funding is available at the central level, what the university’s priorities are, and how resources will be distributed across the institution. Depending on the scope of proposed changes, the UC has the right of consent on some elements and provides advisory input on others.

Following these discussions, faculties and service divisions prepare their draft budgets, which are then reviewed by their respective councils in early autumn. Once finalized, the university-wide budget returns to the UC in late November or early December. Again, the UC’s role varies: some parts are presented for consent, others for advice.

For example, in December 2024, the UC declined to issue advice on the Concept 2025 Budget due to a lack of timely information. Given the premise of the opinion piece, I assume that the December plenary meeting – which involved extensive budget discussions – as well as the additional one in January, were not attended by the author, nor were they reported on by Univers.

Are these processes public? Absolutely. Both Faculty Council and UC meetings are open. However, plenary sessions represent only the final stage of a broader participatory process, which includes multiple committee meetings – also open to the public – where much of the substantive discussion takes place. These earlier meetings often cover the technical questions and concerns that may not be revisited in detail during the plenary.

This may explain the impression that certain topics are not thoroughly discussed, when in fact they already have been. For example, during the current UC cycle, which includes the FiRMA, I have already taken part in several budget-related meetings at the time of writing this piece – prior even to the formal committee and plenary sessions.

At the same time, we face a real dilemma when it comes to confidentiality. Some of the developments discussed in the UC are still in early stages, and making them public too soon can raise unnecessary concerns – especially when details are still evolving. Confidential discussions between the Executive Board (EB) and the UC are meant to ensure that participatory bodies are involved early in the process, so that our feedback can meaningfully shape the outcome.

Room for input

Of course, as reflected in the minutes of various committee and plenary meetings, we consistently stress to the EB that timely communication with the broader community is crucial. It builds trust and avoids the impression that the university community is simply presented with completed decisions, with no room for input.

What constructive criticism do I take from the opinion piece? First, the workings of participatory bodies are often invisible to the wider university community, understandably creating a sense of opacity. There is certainly room for improvement – such as making meeting schedules and minutes more easily accessible. At the same time, I hope those who are interested will also take the opportunity to attend meetings and see representation in action.

Second, there’s a perception that important topics are overlooked in public discussions. This may result from focusing on just one plenary meeting. For example, several student-centered issues – such as support regulations, including those for special family circumstances, and the student charter – are being addressed during this cycle, with a plenary session scheduled for 5 June.

Regular dialogue

Still, the point is well taken: we as UC members need to maintain regular dialogue with the community to better understand what matters most to students and staff. But that dialogue also depends on the community being willing to engage with us. I’d truly appreciate any suggestions on how we can do better and make it easier for the community to follow and participate in our work.

In closing, while I found some of the criticisms of the UC unwarranted, I was glad to see this level of engagement from a TiU student. At a time when democratic participation at our university is declining – the turnout in this year’s student elections fell even further, to just 26% – such willingness to engage and offer good-faith critique is valuable.