On Tuesday 25 October, the Allocation Model Working Group presented its final report, titled ‘Transparency and simplicity in funding: scope for policy’. Hans Amman received the proposal on behalf of the Executive Board.
Eric Fischer, the working group's chair, informed the audience of 70 about the main findings that resulted from the broad discussion about the distribution of the government grant and tuition fees among faculties. That discussion began in April at the request of the Executive Board. Everybody was offered the opportunity to contribute their thoughts and to volunteer proposals in writing or verbally. Rudi Rust explained that six issues frequently came to the fore during the discussion and these have been included in the proposal. One of these, the interconnectedness of research and education, clearly came first. Other issues under review included historical research budgets and the funding factor; it is insufficiently clear what these are based on. In the proposed model, the historical budget will be discontinued and the University of Amsterdam will follow the government’s funding factors. The discussion pointed up a lot of support for reserving funds for strategic policy decisions by the university. The proposal creates scope for policy in the fields of both education and research, which faculties can use to fund new activities.
Questions were put to working group members Eric Fischer, Rudi Rust and Jan Bouwens about the consequences the proposed model would have for the various faculties. The subjects raised included what the budget allocation would look like, how faculties should deal with fluctuations in their income and/or the matching budget proposed for funding the overhead costs of projects funded through indirect or contract funding, and how to avoid prejudicing faculties that do not stand much chance of securing such projects.
Hans Amman: ‘I am happy with the proposal. It makes the allocation of the money more transparent.’ Ingmar Visser, chair of the sounding board group: ‘We are very happy that the whole process has been public. That’s a great improvement on earlier discussions, and it contributes to the model’s transparency and acceptance.’
Hans Amman: ‘We will now follow the standard decision-making procedure. The Executive Board will first look at the proposal on its own and will then discuss it with the deans and the representative advisory council.’ Eric Fischer: ‘That’s how it was agreed at the start.’ Amman: ‘On behalf of the Executive Board, I want to extend a warm thank you to the members of the working group, the sounding board group and the supporting team. A lot of work has been put into this.’