21-12-15 19:41

Dear friends,

this letter from several groups to the Medezeggenschap shows that apparently some people and Folia know more about the selection process than me.
The only information that I got from EgonZehnder (the headhunter used in this procedure) was this:

Hartelijk dank voor uw interesse voor de positie Voorzitter College van Bestuur Universiteit van Amsterdam. Wij hebben goede nota genomen van uw belangstelling.
De vacature stond formeel open tot 4 december. De komende weken zullen alle reacties worden geïnventariseerd. De verwachting is dat wij eind december een eerste selectie hebben kunnen maken.
Wij hopen derhalve in de loop van de maand januari een ieder inhoudelijk te kunnen berichten.
Met dank namens Universiteit van Amsterdam voor uw belangstelling.

Note that, apart from the awkward Dutch, it does not include any specific dates or other real information. This makes it hard for me to understand at what point I dropped out of the procedure. If I do I will not be informed until after the final selection is made. When I heard rumours that the procedure has to be finished in less than 3 weeks, I could do the math. This letter by several groups seems to confirm that. There is already a short list and I am not on it, because  EgonZehnder would have contacted me if I was.
This is all hearsay and second guessing, so of course I wanted to check it. Am I indeed not on the short list and why not? Is the information about the timing of the procedure as mentioned in Folia correct, and why have they not given me that information in the first place? So, I called EgonZehnder. The person responsible at EgonZehnder is on holiday. He will be back the first week of January. This was told, not by his assistant, but by someone who was filling in until the new assistant starts next year.

Let me be clear on this, I do not think I should be on the short list, but EgonZehnder should at least have checked my references. If you look at my CV and letter you will understand why I was expecting that. I meet all requirements and everybody knows that I am passionate about both research and education. I have worked in both the UvA and the HvA and have often argued that they should work more together. Not because they are similar, but because they are different and have much to offer to one another.

On the 'draagvlak' consultation I can only say that in my opinion it is not possible to establish that a candidate has enough 'draagvlak' within one day or even a few days. Besides, it is not even legal to give such a short time notice (WHW 9.3.2). 'Draagvlak' is something you can only create by talking and listening to various people.
The academic community in Amsterdam is at the moment divided and the most important job for the new members of the board is to heal the universities. Anyone who was associated with any group will on first sight not be acceptable by anyone from another group. That also holds for me. There may be groups that will support me because they trust me, and groups that don't. Yet, I think I am able to gain the trust of everybody. To convince people, that I will always act in the interest of the universities as a whole, will take some deep discussions with other stakeholders and that will take time. The same will of course be true for everybody else.

The closed and secret procedure that is used now may work in normal times. In these times of conflict the selection process has to be more open and you can not hide the names of the final candidates until the moment they are appointed and it is too late to comment. I am sorry if that will scare some people into not applying or withdrawing, but this intransparant procedure has also resulted in some very qualified persons to not apply this time.

To quote a note that used to be attached to the door of our secretariat “lack of prior planning does not constitute an emergency”. I know there is not much time for the selection procedure, but that should not be an excuse to have a procedure that is open to only a preselected group.
The RvT has delayed the selection process until things were settled down again. I applaud that delay, but I regret that the RvT has not used it to fundamentally rethink the way the election procedure can be used to recalibrate the board with the community every few years. I think that by putting this much time-pressure on the procedure, the procedure can not be thorough, transparent and unbiased. More importantly, too many good candidates will not apply or drop out for the wrong reasons.

I had high hopes that we could appoint members to the CvB that are really supported by all groups and able to reunite the university, but I am rather disappointed by what I see. I wanted to share that with you all.

Regards,
 
    André

On 18/12/2015 18:27, ReThink UvA wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Earlier today ReThink sent a letter co-signed by various action groups and organisations to ask the student and staff representatives to claim their full representative role during the selection procedure for two new members of the Board of Directors. Folia has already picked up the story and is reporting here: http://www.folia.nl/actueel/98415/actiegroepen-maak-kandidaten-cvb-eerder-bekend. The full text of the letter (in English) is as follows: 
>
> Dear Members of the Central Student Council and Central Works Council,
>
> We write in relation to the ongoing selection procedure for two new members of the University's Board of Directors. We understand that a shortlist has been drawn up, and that the finalists' identities will not be disclosed until a final selection has been made. According to the current procedure you will only be notified of the appointees' identities for the purposes of a perfunctory draagvlakgesprek , to be held less than 24 hours before the Advisory Board formally appoints the new Rector and Chair.
>
> We find that this arrangement undermines your capacity to meaningfully exercise your democratic mandate, and even your specific function in the appointment procedure. Such haste and lack of transparency are at odds with the spirit of openness that should characterise academia.
>
> We call upon you, as our democratically elected representatives, to vindicate your proper role by refusing this problematic procedure. In particular, we urge you to:
>
> - Extend the time frame for the draagvlakgesprek in a way that will allow you to properly vet the candidate/s in proper consultation with the University community;
>
> - Refuse to support any candidates who haven't presented themselves to the University community by 13 January 2016 -- we are sending an open letter to all shortlisted candidates to invite them to a meeting we organised for this purpose in the Maagdenhuis, at 17:30 on that day.
>
> You can count on our support in your efforts to consolidate and extend the democratic progress we are making together in this University.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> ASVA Student Union 
>
> De Nieuwe Universiteit 
>
> FNV Vac
>
> Humanities Rally 
>
> ReThink UvA 
>
> University of Colour