Democracy sidelined: The UvA budget and administrative malpractice
UvA democracy doesn’t work the way it should work as far as the annual budget is concerned, states Noah Pellikaan, chair of the Central Student Council. “The Joint Assembly of the Student and Staff Council never gave a consent, or an advice, on the budget. But it did not matter to the Executive Board.”
The Joint Assembly (in Dutch: GV), amalgam body of the two central representative councils for students and (non-)academic staff, delivered our advice on the 2024 UvA budget to the Executive Board some months ago. The GV has a ‘right of consent’ on the budget document and its earlier draft, the framework letter. Without consent of the GV, UvA cannot begin to spend as planned in the new fiscal year. Highlighted in our initial advice were four specific breaking points—points of contention which if not met will result in the GV not consenting on this nearly 1 billion euro a year budget being passed.
Breaking points
It is common practice for the GV to establish breaking points, and usually through a process of negotiation with the board, these are met in some form. This year was different. One breaking point, on the necessity of additional study advisors, who are typically overworked and have an unclear job description, was met. On the other three, we received no substantive action.
The three unfulfilled breaking points are as follows:
1. To establish a line in the budget titled Student Engagement. This line will allocate funds to four specific student interest organisations. 100, 000 euros in additional subsides to the Asva Student Union who UvA has been underfunding for the better part of three decades. Besides: 15, 000 euros a year to re-fund student led initiative All Ears Mental Health hotline which the administration of FMG cut funding for this December; 10, 000 euros additional for all faculty student councils to ensure adequate reach and operation. And, to allocate additional funding, a suggested amount of 800, 000 euros to Crea. The cultural centre of the UvA has received no increase in subsidies from UvA despite the UvA administration charging them higher prices in rent every year for their building on Roeterseiland (REC).
2. An increase of 50% on the profiling fund compensation. This was partially followed through. However the democratic representatives who receive compensation for the profiling fund are still living under the poverty line with their current compensation. And the board members of student and study associations received no increase in compensation. Meanwhile, a report by the Amsterdamse Kamer van Verenigingen (AKvV) shows many members of boards of associations spend more out of pocket on their board activities than they receive in compensation.
3. Free menstrual products on all UvA campuses. The GV set implementation of a specified line in the budget which would fund free menstrual products for all members of the UvA community as a breaking point. Not for a discounted price in some vending machines as is currently the case, rather free and widely publicly available. We all know free menstrual products will become the norm eventually, the only question is if UvA wants to catch up to societal trends and provide this in ten years’ time, or if they want to be a leading institution and decide a priori their menstruating community deserves free hygiene products, and deserves them now.
Framework letter
So, what went wrong? The Executive Board sent us a letter in response which said, in no uncertain terms, that they are operating under the assumption we have given a de facto consent on the 2024 budget due to our prior consent on the framework letter for that budget. The framework letter is a separate document given to us about six months earlier which outlines preliminary looks at the next years’ budget. According to the Executive Board, insofar as the ‘main lines’ of the framework letter are the same as those in the budget document, our right of consent may be seen as implicit, and that power is taken away from the GV.
Dangerous precedent
It is first off worth noting that framework letter priorities were negotiated by a GV from last academic year with a significantly different personnel makeup, and different priorities as such. Now, this unprecedented argument to bypass what is often seen as the most influential right of consent, the former GV has set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for the Executive Board to entirely sideline democratic bodies at the UvA. And to do so using legally contestable bureaucratic back-alleys.
As GV we do, of course, have an enshrined right to legal advice and action in cases such as this. However, if the budget is not passed by mid-March 2024, salaries to UvA personnel would cease to be paid out. The clock was ticking, and the process of going into a legal dispute (in Dutch: geschillencommissie) is lengthy—far more than the time we had.
So what happened? The GV never gave a consent, or an advice, on the budget. But it did not matter. We could not challenge the administration; lest our educators, PhD candidates, ICTS and Facilities Services personnel, caterers and cleaners, researchers and Folia journalists, would suffer financially in the midst of a drawn-out legal dispute.
In the end, the highest democratic body at an institution of 43.000 students and nine hundred and seventy million euros, stood stagnant. Salaries got paid out, the Executive Board could let their bosses in the supervisory board (in Dutch: RvT) know the budget is passed and there are no causes for concern. And Crea and Asva continue to suffer, boards members of associations miss out, no action is taken on providing free menstrual products. The Goliath stood tall, but where was David?
Noah Pellikaan is UvA-student Literary and Cultural Analysis and both chair of the Central Student Council and the Joint Assembly of students and staff (GV). He is also member of the General Institutional Ethics Committee (AIEC) of the UvA.
