|
The information provided
by the Jan van Eyck (JVE) website and
the papers issued to researchers is out
of date, vague and incomplete. In 2007,
I tried to find out some ordinary things
such as the composition and the responsibilities
of the various boards (supervisory,
policy, editorial). This is information
I would have expected to be freely
available to all members of the academie,
but advising rearchers and
administrative staff members whom I asked
were to various degrees unable
or unwilling to provide the information,
or to discuss the issues. I was referred
to the director Koen Brams.
Koen Brams agreed to answer the questions
at a meeting in his office on Wednesday
3 October 2007. I was prepared to go
along with this only if every researcher
was invited to join the meeting.
The aim ofthe meeting was to ask the
questions and get answers, with
a view to formulating an opinion about
the results later, in discussion with
other researchers,
and finding an appropriate way to present
this opinion to the administration.
There is an
obstacle to doing this in so far as
the administration does not recognise
the researchers' interests collectively
and there is no reliable means of transmitting
an opinion which might be formulated
by researchers. At the moment researchers
are excluded from all decision-making
processes of the academie. So-called
advising researchers, however, are
in the ambiguous position of supposedly
'"doing
the same thing"' as
researchers, while being required by
the administration to sit on some of
the 'boards'. I don't know if that's
a privilege or a burden (in any case
they get paid). It seems that the various
responsibilities of the board-members
are not at all clear, even to them.
Koen Brams refused to answer some of
my questions and his answers to many
of them were not satisfactory. The
meeting, however, was a step towards
bringing some of the issues out in
the open and has been followed by other
initiatives and other researchers questioning
the existing structures.
Read below a summary and details of the interview of 3 October 2007 which I circulated to colleagues, followed by my personal response to Koen Brams [no response] and a statement drafted by Ozren
Popovac and Bruno Bessana, supported
by several reserachers [the Designers’ Manifesto
mentioned in this document was circulated
by members of the Design Department]
 My interview with Koen Brams on 3 October was
not very exciting or informative although I
think it was worth getting it, so to speak,
‘from the horse's mouth’ instead of just by
rumour and gossip. It was also worth demonstrating
that there is some interest on the part of researchers
how the Academie is run.
Very briefly: the director confirmed some aspects
of the administrative structure which can be
guessed once you've been here a little while;
he refused to answer questions about how the
duties and responsibilities of the members of
the 'boards' are defined or about their proceedings;
he gave some hints (not without contradictions)
about the relationship of the Academie to the
Dutch government and the legal status of the
institution. The subtext of my approach was
that there is a problem which could be solved
easily and solving it will make the Jan van
Eyck a more pleasant, productive and efficient
place to work. The initial problem being: where
to find out how things are organised at the
academy. The director did not recognise that
there could, potentially, be a problem with
the current arrangements. Koen Brams devised
the system of administration, he thinks it is
the best possible, if you have a problem, you
can always have a private chat with him, or
bring it to the policy board through an advising
researcher (advising researchers are paid by
the administration to sit on the this board
and give advice to the administration) where
it can be discussed if the chairman (Koen Brams)
decides to discuss it. The administration is
not obliged to follow the advice of the Policy
Board. It is the prerogative of the director
to overrule decisions reached by the Policy
Board. Koen Brams did not want to discuss 'hypothetical'
conflicts of interest and did not accept that
the system as it is could inhibit researchers
from raising issues. He claimed that since no-one
has brought it up before, then it must be because
there is no problem, not because anyone is inhibited.
Don't forget, the Jan van Eyck offers psychological
counselling for researchers with problems ;)
Despite the fact that he was not very forthcoming,
the conversation made some things very clear
as I have pointed out to Koen Brams in a personal
response to the interview. In that message,
which I'll forward to the mailing list in a
moment, I made two suggestions, let's see how
he responds to them.
Not so briefly: here are the questions and
the answers.
These are questions I originally addressed
to Laurens Schumacher on 21 June 2007. He did
not answer them adequately and appeared to misunderstand
some of the questions. This prompted me to clarify
my questions, but I did not get clearer answers.
The answers I did get however require some clarification,
hence some additional questions included now.
Other researchers have raised different questions
which I would also like Koen Brams to answer
now.
About the Policy Board [members: Dominiek Hoens,
Daan van der Velden, Imogen Stidworthy,
Koen Brams (KB), Laurens Schumacher
(LS)]
1. Please confirm the names of the current
members of the policy board.
ANSWER: correct above
2. How were they appointed?
LS says (E-mail 28 June 2007): The procedure:
after consultation by the director with the
advising researchers of the respective department
one advising researcher per department is appointed.
ANSWER: correct above
3. What are their terms of service?
LS says: The term of service is a maximum of
five years.
Explanation by AA (E-mail 1 July 2007): The
question "What are their terms of
service?" certainly includes the question
of the "term" or period of service
of the members of the boards, but "terms" is
a more general question which also
covers, among other things, the following [3.1–3.4].
Such terms of service would normally
be found in a job description, a contract
of employment or similar agreement. I look forward
to getting your description of the
terms of service, or copies of the relevant
documents.
3.1. What is expected of the members of the
board, for example in working hours, attendance
at meetings, research into policy matters or
into practical options for implementation?
NO ANSWER
3.2. What is offered to members of the board,
for example, in fees, privileges, incentives,
expenses?
ANSWER: Advising researchers get a supplement
for service on the board. KB will not say how
much.
3.3. [Please define] the board members' responsibilities
to fellow board members, to the administration
and the researchers.
NO ANSWER
3.4. [Please give details of the] policy on
ethical issues such as conflicts of interest
and descriptions of the correct procedures.
[see supplement, below]
ANSWER: there is no problem and there is no
policy
4. How come no researcher is a member of the
policy board?
LS says: Researchers cannot become a member
of the Policy Board.
Explanation by AA: The question "How come
no researcher is a member of the policy board?" means:
Why is no researcher a member of the policy
board? Your answer, "Researchers cannot
become a member of the Policy Board" is
not an explanation. I look forward to getting
one. (Need I mention that the criterion of "seniority" is
meaningless given the broad range of
ages, experience and qualifications
among researchers and advising researchers?)
NO ANSWER: KB could not explain why an equally
qualified or indeed better qualified researcher
could not equally serve on the policy board
(and get paid for his/her time), after all,
researchers and advising researchers are supposed
to 'do the same thing'.
5. How come the director is a member of the
policy board instead of answering to it?
LS says: The Policy Board comprises one advising
researcher per department, the director and
the deputy director. The director is the chairman.
NO ANSWER
Additional questions from AA
5.5 Should the Director and Deputy Director
considered “permanent members” of
the Policy Board?
ANSWER: Yes
5.6 Are the duties of the Director and Deputy
Director different from those of other members
of the Policy Board?
ANSWER: Yes, but no explanation.
5.7 Is the administration is obliged to implement
the decisions made by the Policy Board?
ANSWER: No
6. Please may I have a copy of the minutes
of the last meeting of Policy Board.
ANSWER: No. Only the announcements are made
public. No explanation.
Additional questions from Anke Brüchner:
7. What is the policy of the Academie regarding
researchers who are pregnant or have
young children?
ANSWER: There is no policy.
7.1 Please describe more generally the anti-discrimination
policy of the academie.
ANSWER: There is no policy.
7.2 Do you understand your obligations regarding
equality and access under the law of the Netherlands?
[There wasn't much point asking this question.]
About the Supervisory Board [members: Jan
van Adrichem, Marthe Coenegracht, Tijmen
van Grootheest, Fons Haagmans, Cees
Hamelink, Bart Verschaffel, Jacques
De Visscher]
1. Please confirm the names of the current
members of the supervisory board.
ANSWER: two members from the above list have
resigned and have been replaced.
2. How were they appointed?
LS says: The Board decides about the election
of new Board members.
ANSWER: Correct, the board elects its own members.
KB did not like the suggestion that the constitution
of the board was like a private members' club
where existing members vote to admit new members,
but he did not explain how the elections to
the board of the academie actually work.
3. What are their terms of service?
LS says: The term of service is three years
and can be renewed.
[See explanation by AA (E-mail 1 July 2007),
above]
ANSWER: the term is correct, members serve
on average nine years.
3.1. What is expected of the members of the
board, for example in working hours, attendance
at meetings, research into policy matters or
into practical options for implementation?
NO ANSWER
3.2. What is offered to members of the board,
for example, in fees, privileges, incentives,
expenses?
ANSWER: Service is voluntary.
3.3. [Please define] the board members' responsibilities
to fellow board members, to the administration,
the researchers.
NO ANSWER
3.4. [Please give details of the] policy on
ethical issues such as conflicts of interest
and descriptions of the correct procedures.
ANSWER: KB referred to Dutch law, but did not
give details. He did not respond affirmatively
to the suggestion that the same provisions of
Dutch law should also apply to the conduct of
the Policy Board and indeed to the whole administration.
4. Who reports to the supervisory board?
LS says: The directors report to the Board.
ANSWER: Correct. KB reports to the Board, but,
he added, this is not mandatory.
5. How do they actually supervise?
LS says: The Board members can inform themselves
about the implementation of the policy and the
programme in any way they would want to.
ANSWER: Correct. KB would not add any details.
5.1 Please give me some recent examples of
how members of the Supervisory Board have exercised
their duties other than by reading the Director's
report.
NO ANSWER
6 Please may I have a copy of the minutes of
the last meeting of Policy Board.
ANSWER: No. KB added that the supervisory board
does not have meetings.
7 To whom does the Supervisory Board report?
ANSWER: The Supervisory Board has the ultimate
responsibility for the institution as a private
foundation under Dutch law. This would presumably
include the responsibility which goes with the
grant received from the Dutch government and
other funding sources, but KB did not explain
properly. He suggested that he is delegated
by the Supervisory Board to negotiate with the
Dutch government, but also claimed there is
no negotiation. Later he suggested that the
Dutch government can impose conditions on the
grant, but did not explain how.
Supplement
It appears from what LS told me that researchers
are excluded from all decision-making
processes at Jan van Eyck Academie,
even ones which impact directly on researchers
ability to carry out research. Yet the researchers
provide nearly all the contents of the programme
of the Academy and it is through their efforts
alone that this programme reaches a
wider public.
There appears to be no means recognised by
the administration by which researchers interests
are represented collectively, and by which they
can participate in decision-making.
Nor does there appear to be any means by which
an individual researcher can represent his or
her own interests without risk of them being
compromised by conflicts of interest. It seems
to me that this arises, in part, because of
the ambiguity of the position of so-called advising
researchers who, on one hand, are supposed to
do the same thing as researchers, and, on the
other hand, are called upon by the administration
to serve on the Policy Board or the Editorial
Board, from which researchers are excluded.
Examples of potential conflicts:
• A researcher could find that raising
questions about the conduct of the Editorial
Board or the Policy Board could compromise his/her
academic relationship with an advising researcher
because the advising researcher feels uncomfortable
with the ambiguity of his/her role. No advising
researcher whom I have asked has been able to
give me a clear picture of their responsibilities
as advising researcher and administrative board
member.
• A researcher could be inhibited from
making individual representations to the Policy
Board in case it might adversely influence the
result of a proposal to the Editorial Board,
which appears to give or withhold its imprimatur
arbitrarily. No-one has been able to point me
to any open and consistent statement of principles,
standards and criteria the Editorial Board uses
for assessing proposals.
The examples could be multiplied. In any case,
why should a researcher approach the Policy
Board when it is not at all clear whether the
administration is obliged to implement the decisions
made by the Policy Board?
ANSWER: I have summarised the director's attitude
to these questions in my brief outline above.
Reserve questions [not in the end worth asking
during the meeting, but could be investigated.]
1. Do you understand your obligations under
Article 110 of the Netherlands Constitution?
COMMENT: Article 110 obliges public administrators
to conduct themselves in a transparent way.
2. Do you understand your obligations under
the ‘Freedom of Information’ Act
of 31 October 1991?
COMMENT: FoI obliges public administrators
and contractors to disclose certain types of
information on request, unless they have a legal
order exempting them from disclosure. However,
institutions of the education and culture ministries
are exempt unless they have a legal order compelling
them to disclose information. I'm not sure what
the status of JVE is.
Katja brought up a question concerning the
'Bologna Process' which aims to define research
at a European level. KB said he might be obliged
to respond to this by the Dutch government,
but did not say how. For the time being, it
is not on the agenda until the current so-called
policy plan expires.
Achim brought up a question concerning the
administration of the Editorial Board. KB claimed
that Anouk's role was intended to be 'stronger',
but did not explain what that means. It was
clear that the details of the EB would merit
a session of their own.
 [13
October 2007] Dear Koen,
Thank you for taking the time to discuss the
questions I raised about the institutional structures
of the Jan van Eyck Academie. I'm sorry you
did not feel you could be more open about the
activities of the Policy Board and the so-called
Supervisory Board. Nonetheless, I think the
conversation demonstrated very clearly the major
deficiencies of the administration of the Academie,
namely: lack of transparency and accountability
in the management of the Academie, and the lack
of any documented policy on fair and equal treatment
for all members of the Academie.
I do not see how the nominal status of the
Academie as a private foundation can be used
to justify the suspension of the basic standards
of administration consistent with the Academie's
dependency on public funding.
A policy document on fairness and equality
does not have to go beyond the basic provisions
of Dutch law, but I'm sure you will agree that
even people brought up in the Netherlands are
not familiar with all the details. Given the
international membership of the Academie, it
would be all the more important to have a document
which describes clearly what can be expected
of the administration (and indeed of all members
of the Academie) and the relevant structures
and procedures for dealing with any alleged
breach of this policy. An explicit anti-discrimination
policy, which sets the standard for all members
of the Academie would be desirable.
If you have any information or comments to
add to what you said on 3 October, then please
write to me. I think you are also aware that
the Jan van Eyck web site needs to be updated.
I would like to make two suggestions for now:
1. Fellow researchers and I would like to invite
the members of the Supervisory Board to visit
the Academie to learn about our research and
our working conditions. I would be grateful
if you would give me the contact details (address,
telephone, e-mail) of all the members of the
Supervisory Board. Please let me know if you
would prefer to extend the invitation on our
behalf, although I think direct contact would
be the most practical way of making appointments.
2. Fellow researchers and I would like to propose
that the annual report should include a chapter
compiled and edited by the researchers. Clearly
this would be an important contribution to a
balanced picture of the Academie. Please let
me know how you think this should be done to
be sure it is published in the report now in
preparation.
I look forward to your early reply to these
suggestions.
With best wishes,
Anthony Auerbach
 A
Statement
The researchers undersigned would like to draw
attention to three situations affecting current
and future research life at Jan van Eyck. The
three situations cited are presented as problematic
examples because they highlight the need for
questions to be answered and solutions to be
found.
Three situations
• The planned re-building of the Academie
apparently envisages the dismantling of existing
studios, replacement of individual studios with
collective ones and the transformation of a
common facility into a public restaurant.
• Decisions concerning the tenancy of
(advising) researchers have been made apparently
without adequate consultation, in particular,
without properly consulting colleagues involved
as collaborative partners in specific projects
with the (advising) researchers concerned.
• The Designers’ Manifesto, supported
by the large majority of researchers, has highlighted
the lack of recognition for the difference between
work carried out to commission and self-motivated
or collaborative research. The “Decision” attributed
to the Policy Board meeting of 9 October fails
to recognise the main points raised by the designers.
A Question, or three
The situations cited above are cause s of uncertainty
and confusion, discontent, stress and frustration.
They are a hindrances to research. But a researcher
cannot freely complain about such points because
there no way in which such a complaint could
be heard impartially as long the Director, to
whom such a complaint must finally be addressed,
appears to be the sole arbiter of all institutional
and editorial matters of the Academie.
Are ...
1. the concentration of decision-making power
in the hands of one person,
2. the exclusion of researchers decision-making
processes, and
3. the lack of any fair way of assessing issues
which directly affect researchers’ ability
to carry out their research
... inscribed in the statutes of the Academie?
Or are they the result of an opportunistic
interpretation of vague statutes which would
normally provide for fair participation in decision-making
processes and the separation of decision-making
from executive powers?
A Call
The situations cited above, clouded in obscurity
and rumour, have given rise to differing opinions.
But there has been no space for an open, informed
and responsible discussion. The researchers
undersigned urge the Director to recognise the
collective interests of researchers and his
own responsibilities by suggesting a framework
for an inclusive discussion aimed at resolving
current issues and potential conflicts.
 ...
return: Jan van Eyck Academie
|
