At the last meeting of the academic year, members of the University's participational bodies asked critical questions of the Executive Board regarding the financial course for the coming years. The debate got quite tough at times. ‘There is no way you can justify this. The entire University is outraged about it.’

Will the Administration Office – the support service of the Executive Board – remain unaffected by the towering budget cuts facing Radboud University? That was one of the questions members of the participational bodies wanted to have a clear answer to at the last meeting of the academic year this past Monday.

The Policy Letter for 2026, on which faculties and departments must base their budgets for the next year, was the pièce de résistance of the meeting. For over an hour, members of the University Student Council (USC) and the Works Council questioned the Executive Board about the University’s financial course for the coming years. The fact is that by 2030, the University has to reduce its expenses by €36.8 million, with the biggest concession coming from support services.

Two administrative advisers

Should the Administration Office also contribute, members of the participational bodies wanted to know. Vice chair Agnes Muskens acknowledged that previous communication from the University on this issue had not been clear. ‘The Administration Office is included in the review that is currently taking place,’ she said. However, Muskens did temper expectations regarding potential gains. ‘There are many tasks that are required by law and that require a lot of capacity. We have to be transparent about that.’

‘There is no way you can justify this to the academic community’

In particular, two vacancies for administrative advisers that recently appeared on the University’s website – one for the Rector and one for the President of the Board – elicited an extremely unfavourable response from the participational bodies. ‘How dare you do this at such a time’ asked Wilma Philipse of the Works Council indignantly. ‘The entire University is outraged by it. There is no way you can justify this to the academic community.’

Rector José Sanders expressed understanding for the outrage. ‘At the same time, speaking from my own experience and after nearly two academic years in a row: I wouldn’t last without administrative support. I need someone to manage my files properly.’

Hurt employees

The Honours Academy, which is nominated for dissolution, was also discussed. Sanders explained that the University wants to look at a new, more efficient organisation of teaching innovation, which may involve combining the Honours Academy and the Teaching & Learning Centre (TLC). ‘The two initiatives share a similar ambition,’ the Rector said.

Members of the participational bodies expressed concerns about this development, given the disappearance of the Honours Academy and the fact that the TLC also has to make cuts. ‘How do you envisage this?’ asked Chair of the USC Sven Braster. The Rector stressed that first, the needs of the faculties will be mapped. ‘Only then can we determine how to support that centrally.’

Later in the meeting, the Rector also apologised to the Honours Academy staff, who had to find out about the proposed closure through the grapevine. ‘I understand that employees are feeling hurt. I am sincerely sorry about that. I will personally talk to them starting next week. This process went faster than it should have.’

‘Smarter programming’

On behalf of the USC, Braster asked to what extent the University intends to support long-term students in the future. The Rector answered that this was a complex issue. ‘For years, the University has funded facilities that do not fit within the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science’s model – think of the Honours Programme, the pre-master’s programmes, or dual enrolment. We deliberately opted for a broader vision on accessible and in depth education. But with the current budget cuts, we have to question whether this is still feasible.’

‘What kind of university do we want to be?’

‘I am mostly hearing financial arguments,’ responded Works Council member Edita Poljac, also head of the Honours Academy. ‘But what kind of university do we want to be? What students do we still want to attract?’

The University’s vision is currently clashing with the harsh reality of budget cuts, the Rector explained. ‘Our ambition is precisely to make interfaculty education and deepening more widely available. Not by offering even more courses, but through smarter programming – so that exchange is possible without increasing the workload.’

‘Central control’

In light of the budget cuts, the Rector spoke of a shift in the University’s organisational course. Whereas up until now the focus has been on faculties – ‘decentralised unless’, in the Rector’s words – there is now a ‘revalorisation of central control’. ‘As the University becomes more complex, more coordination is needed. This does not mean that everything has to be centralised, but sometimes it is simply necessary.’

Works Council member Mathijs van de Sande pointed out that many of the current choices around budget cuts come down to the faculties. ‘We are introducing a model that comes from the ministry, with no substantive input from the University itself. That makes it difficult for a faculty to set its own course. ‘For a small faculty like the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies, these marginal shifts [within the budget cuts, eds.] can have major consequences.’

President of the Executive Board Alexandra van Huffelen concluded with a not very optimistic message. ‘However we distribute the impact, cuts have to be made. Unfortunately, there is no secret money jar on campus.’ The participational bodies have not yet agreed to the Policy Letter; the members first want time to reflect. The decision will only be made next Monday.