Concept minutes Faculty Council, ESHCC meeting 23-11-2015
Present:




Faculty Council Members: Isabel Awad, Maarten van Dijck, Mariangela Lavanga, Lidewij
Radix, Laura Braden, Eline Achterberg, Mel Schickel, Juul Schilders, Maaike de Keulenaar,
Loredana Julia Schelper
Faculty Council Support staff: Samir Azrioual
Members of the ESHCC Management: Dick Douwes, Gytha Coleman, Stijn Reijnders
Other members of the ESHCC, Annette van Ham, Ben Wubs, Vidhi Chaudhri, Ju-Sung
(Jay) Lee
Opening meeting:
Isabel Awad opens the meeting at 10:10 and welcomes everyone.
Reading of the agenda:
Point B, the IBCoM student applications policy, is pushed towards the end of the meeting, in
case Susanne Janssen has time to attend the discussion.
Approval of the minutes:
The minutes of the Faculty Council-meeting of 31 August 2015 are approved with some minor
changes. Samir Azrioual will work these out.
Point A: Progress of Education Policy Plan ESHCC 2014-2018
On 16 November 2015 the Faculty Council received a document on the Progress Education Policy
Plan from the MT, to comment on. This document contains the proposed general policy that the
ESHCC will pursue in the following years. There is some urgency in discussing this matter.
The Faculty Council has concerns about the language requirements for the international tracks
in the History department. It is not clear whether the C1-level language requirements are being
met because staff members who teach in the programs do not always take the test.
Stijn Reijnders remarks that the C1-level is an ambition, and that the departments are working
on it. The History department went through a lot of changes already, so here a defensive
approach was maintained. The level of language skills is monitored through the course
evaluations and other signals from students. The teachers’ use of English has been part of the
evaluations and that the signs are positive. For new employees the language requirement is
1
standard.
Members of the Faculty Council are not entirely satisfied with the procedure of the evaluations.
Maarten van Dijck is concerned about the low response rates and lack of statistical significance
of the evaluations.
Mel Schickel has concerns about the fact that the results of the evaluations are always
discussed annually and not directly after the block.
Stijn Reijnders comment that the evaluations themselves are never decisive, but if the results
are alarming, steps will always be taken.
Dick Douwes mentioned a second problem: the History department had to hire many new staff
members to give lectures over a short period on time. There was a risk in maintaining the
English proficiency of these new staff members.
Isabel Awad suggests that the History department could prepare a list of potential candidates
that fulfil all requirements beforehand. The Faculty Council might come up with an advice for
this, and will also contact the History Program Committee to discuss this matter.
The Faculty Council wonders what the possibilities and necessities are of the C2-level language
requirement for the Arts and Culture track.
Gytha Coleman explains that this is the choice of the individual heads of the departments. It is
not in line with University policy.
Isabel Awad is concerned that this might invoke a bias towards teachers from English-speaking
countries in vacancy selection procedures. She also asks whether teachers have time to follow
specific training days, and if there are even facilities that support the C2-training.
Stijn Reijnders remarks that this is not affordable.
Laura Braden suggests that a crash course in expressing yourself would provide a high yield at
low costs (in time).
The Faculty Council will ask the History Program Committee to monitor the language-issue
closely, and will ask the Committee for their advice on how to change this.
Isabel Awad asks Stijn Reijnders for additional information about item 12 in the policy plan, ‘to
further increase the quality of education’. Stijn Reijnders has no real information to give yet.
The Faculty is working with Risbo on innovative teaching programs. A buddy program will be
developed.
Isabel Awad asks Stijn Reijnders for input about the Intercultural classroom-project. The pilot
has been delayed, but it will be part of the Innovative Teaching Committee. The Faculty Council
wants to have a better sense of what the director of Education expects of the program.
The Faculty Council asks about the contact hours for history, the number is lower than the
other programs.
Stijn Reijnders explains that a minimum of 12 hours per week is required by law. There are
2
some concerns with the fact that office hours of the teachers are also part of this figure. The
Faculty Council will have more contact with the History Program Committee on this.
Action points:
-
The Faculty Council will get in close contact with the History Program Committee to
discuss the language issues and look into the distribution of the contact hours.
Point C: ESHCC’s plans related to investing in educational quality (‘studievoorschot’)
On 17 November 2015 the Faculty Council received a document on the Spending plan for
student grant funds, to comment on. The University will be allocated extra funds which will
become available through the abolition of student grants (“studiefinanciering”). The money
saved will be returned to higher education institutions to improve the quality of education. This
document contains a set of proposals of the MT to spend the funds on.
The Faculty Council wants to know if the money that has become available through the
‘studievoorschot’ is used as additional funding, or as a way to fill up gaps in the budget plan.
Dick Douwes explains that the money must be used to improve the current quality of education.
There is a close connection between these funds and the results of the report of the committee
-point D in the agenda-, allowing the teaching staff to improve their qualities.
The Faculty Council wants to know more about the development of intercultural skills for
students, as stated in the proposition (proposition c).
Stijn Reijnders and Gytha Coleman respond that this program still needs to be developed, and
that the Faculty must develop this on its own.
Isabel Awad wonders whether this program is worth the money, since the students are already
in an international environment.
Gytha Coleman responds that this point was one of the concerns of the IBCoM-students. The
buddy-program has been beneficial in this.
Stijn Reijnders adds to this that the mentoring system will be implemented in the other
departments, apart from Media & Communication, as well. The setting up of this system will
cost some money.
The Faculty Council is not opposed to proposition c (improve student facilities) and proposition
d (expanding cooperation with civil society), but wants to know more about the programs.
These programs will be developed with the involvement of the Program Committees. The
Faculty Council has some concerns with the international representation in the Program
Committees.
Stijn Reijnders states that the plans in proposition d (expanding cooperation with civil society)
3
are a sketch of how the money can be spent. In reality, a large part of the budget will be
allocated to the individual departments.
Isabel Awad is confused about why a large part of the budget of proposition e (enhancing
international programmes) is in fact used for marketing.
Eline Achterberg does not see a direct return on the investment for the students who finance it.
Dick Douwes and Stijn Reijnders elaborate on this by explaining that it is the ambition of the
Faculty to develop strong international programs. In order to do this, the Faculty needs to draw
in international students. This is beneficial to the Dutch students as well, who have been
complaining about a lack of diversity (in the history courses).
Isabel Awad asks Stijn Reijnders whether a one-time investment in some items (like proposition
c and d) will be enough Stijn explains that the development of the plans costs money, but after
that it can easily be maintained. He does acknowledge that the investment might not be the
best solution for proposition d, since this requires structural funds. In the following years there
will also be university-wide funds that the Faculty will try to obtain. The University Council is
working on this, but still needs a clearer view.
Action points:
- The Faculty Council will come up with an advice for the budget of the studievoorschotgelden.
- In developing the intercultural programs, the Program Committees of the ESHCC will be
approached.
Point E: The report from the Committee for Teaching and Research Work Load
On 15 November 2015 the Faculty Council received a report from the Committee for Teaching
and Research Work Load to comment on. The Committee for Teaching and Research Work Load
had been asked to provide advice and suggestions to address the concerns of ESHCC faculty with
regard to the work load they experience. The report contains a set of reconsiderations and
improvements to tackle these matters.
Ben Wubs (chair of the committee) explains that the committee has tried to solve the issues
mainly involving the new and young training staff. In general, the committee worked on
optimising the transparency and working of the rules.
Dick Douwes notes that the MT of the Faculty will wait with discussing the document internally
until the MT has the response from the Faculty Council.
Gytha Coleman made a calculation, and expects that the solutions can be implemented at a
cost of 100.000 euros a year (covered through the studievoorschotgeld, if that proposal is
approved). She came to this number by extrapolating the numbers that Susanne Janssen used
4
in the M&C department. Gytha Coleman is thus interested in the response from other
departments (given that the M&C model is being used as a “best practice” in several aspects of
the proposal).
Isabel Awad asks how official the advice of the Faculty Council will be.
Gytha Coleman confirms that it will be an official internal policy.
Stijn Reijnders expresses his disappointment that the presence of PhD.-students in the
Committee was limited; he hopes the Faculty Council will take into account the PhD.-students’
views.
Isabel Awad asks whether the proposed changes are enough to secure the vacation time of
staff members, since this was the initial problem that the committee had to address. She
mentions that there is still confusion about the policy with respect to vacation leave among
staff members.
Gytha Coleman mentions that if things like these are not clear, staff members should ask their
department head.
Isabel Awad insists that it will be important—in a future FC meeting (maybe early 2016)—to
discuss the vacation policy and the 400.000 euro reservation deficit for people who do not take
their vacations. She asks whether any other measure have been taken in this respect.
Dick Douwes explains that that reservation remains, but should not be allowed to rise.
The Faculty Council asks about proposition 1.5 (maintaining a multi-annual overview per
employee to enable the compensation of TLH across years). The Council wonders whether the
department heads should do this.
Ben Wubs explains that the department head does not have to do it, but have the responsibility
for this. It must be done individually, per staff member, to maintain transparency.
Stijn Reijnders comments that the Media and Communication department already works like
this.
Ben Wubs raises awareness on how the annual report may also lead to negative balances (if
someone teaches less than expected), which would need to be compensated.
Dick Douwes mentions that this raises concerns for the History department, where people
sometimes have under-taught (given to the small numbers of students).
With respect to proposition 2.11, Isabel Awad mentions that the Faculty Council requires a
higher improvement of fte.
Maarten van Dijck notes that, in his experience, the Faculty Council takes much more work than
the Program Committee.
Dick Douwes states that the University Council has made an advice concerning a Faculty-wide
5
budget to cover the costs related to Faculty Councils. The University Board still needs to
respond, but he expects a reply this academic year.
Ben Wubs stresses the importance of recommendation 18 in the document, a new committee
for “best practises”.
Gytha Coleman states that the Program Committees should be involved in this.
Stijn Reijnders suggests a different committee that studies the research workload of staff
members (including the allocation of time for PhD. supervision).
Action points:
-
The Faculty Council will approach the PhD.-students more actively to hear from their
view on the report from the Committee for Teaching and Research Work Load.
The Faculty Council will also try to gather additional feedback from ESHCC’s staff.
The Faculty Council will write an advice on this topic
Point B: IBCoM student applications policy
On 15 November 2015 the Faculty Council received a memo from Susanne Janssen, Founding
Dean of IBCoM and Dept. Head Media and Communication, regarding Application for Additional
requirements (art.7.26) for IBCoM, 2017-2018, to comment on. Because of legal changes the
admissions policy of IBCoM must change. In order to maintain the educational concept of IBCoM,
additional requirements have to be implemented. This policy plan discusses these plans.
Susanne Janssen is unavailable to attend the meeting.
The Faculty Council has no concerns regarding the new additional requirements, and expresses
its faith in Susanne Janssen’s views on the matter. A favourable advice will be written as soon
as possible.
Gytha Coleman thanks the Faculty Council on behalf of Susanne Janssen.
Action points:
-
The Faculty Council will write a favourable advice on the new IBCoM student
applications policy.
Point F: The dean’s reply to the F-Council advice on, a. The budget plan 2016, b. ESHCC’s
tenure track, c. ESHCC’s maternity/parental leave
In September 2015 the Faculty Council wrote a positive advice on the budget plan 2016, and a
negative advice on the ESHCC’s tenure track policy and the ESHCC’s maternity-parental leave
policy. On 11 November 2015 the dean sent the Faculty Council a letter with his replies on the
advice.
6
Isabel Awad asks the dean what the current tenure track policy is. As far as she knows, the
policy on which the Faculty Council gave a negative advice has been running for years (in the
M&C department at least) and was never discussed and/or approved at any point by a Faculty
Council.
Gytha Coleman says that the policy is on the staff pages.
Dick Douwes and Gytha Coleman reply that they are not sure about the validity of the present
tenure track policy. The dean explains that this is not a real problem since (a) nobody is
currently under tenure track in ESHCC and (b) there are no plans to offer tenure track contracts
in the short term (before a university wide policy is in place).
Mariangela Lavanga asks if the present policy then can be removed from the Faculty website,
since newly hired staff members become confused by it.
Action points:
-
Brenda, from Human Resources, will contact the Faculty Council about the tenure track
policy.
Point D: Amendment to Faculty regulations with the addition of a student member in the MT
On 17 November 2015 the Faculty Council received a memo from the MT regarding an
amendment to the Faculty regulations to include a student member in the MT. The Faculty
Council is asked to approve the additional of article 5.3 as articulated in the memo.
The Faculty Council has some concerns regarding the procedure for selecting a student member
for the MT and would like to see a reference to this in the document.
Dick Douwes explains that the MT is not a representative body. The student member acts as a
link between the Program Committees and the MT. The student member has a ‘student view’
on matters, but is not a representative of all students of the ESHCC.
Gytha Coleman explains that the student member can best be seen as an intermediate
between management and students.
Maarten van Dijck asks whether the position of student member of the MT will be open for
international students.
Dick Douwes agrees that the position should be open for international students, but there is a
problem with the documents discussed in the MT, which are often written in Dutch.
Action Points:
-
The Faculty Council will write an advice regarding this topic
Point G: Other issues
7
There is an on-going discussion about course evaluations (linked to the educational policy plan
report, and a suggestion in the MT’s minutes that teachers should send students a reply to the
course evaluations).
Vidhi Chaudhri thinks there are serious problems with the feedback through course evaluations,
that out their reliability and validly in question (in her case, this year, students in an
international classroom received a questionnaire that was partly in Dutch).
Maarten van Dijck would like to see more scientific data in the reports of the evaluations. Right
now staff members can only see their average rating. This could be amended with error
margins, upper- and lower bounds, and a reliability factor.
Incoming and outgoing post
N/A
Resolutions
N/A
Working Conditions
Gytha Coleman provides an update about the blinds. The blinds will be changed and have
already been ordered.
Maarten van Dijck forwards a complaint from the History department: some office rooms are
not soundproof.
Gytha Coleman invites everyone who has this problem to address it at the service desk. Some
rooms are not yet made soundproof; this will be fixed if mentioned.
Point H: Announcements
-
The next Faculty Council meeting is on 25 January 2016.
Isabel Awad will be away on maternity leave.
8