The board of directors would prefer that the university council does not implement the option of anonymous voting in exceptional cases.
According to the board, this would undermine the council’s democratic foundation.
Of course, says board president Jouke de Vries, the final decision rests with the council itself. The council’s functioning is outlined in the university council’s Rules of Order, which is back on the council’s agenda this month.
Still, De Vries is critical of this possible change. ‘For the board, it’s a matter of principle not to do this, as it prevents your constituency from seeing how votes are cast. And, in my view, this isn’t a solution to the issue at hand.’
Conflicting views
Currently, council members vote openly, either by faction or individually, so it’s clear who is for or against an issue. But according to Manuel Reyes with the personnel faction, this can create problems when a council member’s view conflicts with that of their supervisor.
Anonymous voting could alleviate this, some council members argue, as discussions would remain public while employees wouldn’t risk issues due to their vote.
Social safety
The board, however, sees it differently, viewing the underlying issue as a matter of social safety at the university rather than a council issue. ‘We should address that, rather than how the council votes.’
Dinie Bouwman (personnel faction) acknowledges De Vries’ perspective but points out that a solution for social (un)safety is not yet in place. Until it is, she suggests that anonymous voting could still help in rare cases.
The council and the board will continue the discussion in a private meeting to set conditions for confidential voting. The outcome will be publicly shared before the next council meeting.