Last academic year, the ombuds officer recorded 44 reports from staff members, compared to around 35 in previous years. ‘Partly explained by four reports directly related to the reorganisation at the S&T faculty’, Warmelink notes.
‘Embedded within UT’
But that does not fully explain the increase. ‘What I hear is that people come to me on the advice of others. You could call it a kind of word of mouth marketing’, says Warmelink. ‘That seems positive to me, as does the balance in reports coming from different faculties and services.’
The pattern may say something about how embedded the role of ombuds officer is within the UT, according to Warmelink. ‘At other universities, the role is still in its infancy, officers change quickly due to one-year contracts, or they have to leave after a conflict with the executive board. I am pleased with how my role and responsibilities are structured here.’
Difference between students and staff
Students, however, rarely find their way to Warmelink. Last academic year, there were eight cases. ‘I see that students often choose a different route, such as a student desk or a confidential adviser. That is fine, of course. The relationship is good, so if my help is needed for a case, it is quickly found.’
As in the previous academic year, Warmelink also saw more conflicts arise under the pressure of budget cuts. ‘And especially among staff, you see a link between their employment position and financial resources. When there is less money, there is less room for initiatives to solve such problems.’
Sound decision-making
As in the past five years, Warmelink highlights a trend in his annual report. This time, he focuses on ‘the importance of sound decision-making in preventing conflicts’. ‘Of all UT bodies with decision-making authority, only the executive board has a secretary general who monitors the process. Faculties and service departments do not’, Warmelink explains.
In recent years, this has caused friction: misunderstandings about who has authority, who communicates decisions, and how. ‘During recent reorganisations, there was, of course, consideration of who should make decisions and how to communicate them. The decision-making and communication could therefore come across as cold and lacking empathy. But it can also help to keep the message – which is obviously very impactful for those involved – impersonal. That is a very delicate balance.’
‘A board must govern’
Other decisions in daily practice sometimes differ, Warmelink observes. ‘Decision-making is not always well thought out. That sometimes applies to communication as well. In several cases, a business dispute – which requires an administrative solution – grows into a personal conflict. At some point, it is no longer about the content of the message, but about the tone. Eventually, people come to me, and I try to de-escalate and refocus on the substantive issue.’
Warmelink’s advice: faculties and services should consider introducing a secretary general role. ‘A secretary general acts as a filter: they filter the issues and translate them so that a board can make a decision. That prevents escalation. A board must ultimately govern. Of course, it remains human work and requires empathy, but the UT must also approach things professionally.’
