“We can improve the process”

There will be a thorough review of the process. This is what Peter Larsson, Chairman of the Board, has promised. And some changes will come into force as early as during the ongoing election of a new pro-vice chancellor.

– But I will not compromise with the formalities. The matter is in the hands of the board. But we can involve the consultative assembly to a greater extent, he says.

THE SEVERE CRITICISM of the process of electing a vice-chancellor has been reignited and received extensive media attention.

– I am quite jaded. I have no interest in reviewing the debate itself, but there are reasons for being self-critical, says Peter Larsson, who for the past few weeks has had discussions with colleagues and vice-chancellors at around ten universities.

– My assessment is that we have complied with the usual national process and that we are not appreciably different from other universities. But we will conduct an evaluation to see how we can improve the process in the future.

In the wake of the criticism Peter Larsson has proposed appointing a recruiting committee to work together with the consultative assembly. He thinks that this will make for better clarity and more extensive support.

– But we need to be very aware of accountability and the applicants’ need for privacy.

According to the Higher Education Ordinance, the board is accountable to the government. That cannot be negotiated away. However, we can have a more or less comprehensive dialogue with the consultative assembly.

– I AM SURE THAT the format for the vice-chancellor election process can be improved but when we receive the nominations, everyone must be treated equally. There may be some individuals who are open about their candidacy, but others may not be. Having different processes in such an instance would be wrong.

Peter Larsson points out that the criticism has come from a small group in the consultative assembly, 13 out of a total of 70 people have signed the missive.

– The critics have not been in the majority, but I will not dismiss their opinions, instead I take the matter very seriously.

HOW WE WILL GO about it next time will be determined by the review, but if the staff want total transparency then all candidates will have to accept that premise.

As early as in March last year the recruitment committee was appointed with 7 members led by Peter Larsson. It comprised 2 teacher representatives, 2 students and 1 representative from the other employees, as well as 1 external member of the board. Since then , the committee has worked on drafting a “comprehensive process in open competition,” which Peter Larsson argues was a clear request from the staff. A total of 40 people were nominated. Of those, 22 declined. Of the remaining 18, 12 were internal. After a review, the number of candidates was whittled down to 6 who advanced to a final round, where 3 people were eventually selected by the recruitment committee and whose names were subsequently made public. But soon thereafter, Georgia Destouni from Stockholm University withdrew her candidacy.

– It was a minor debacle, but it goes with the territory.

The day the consultative assembly gathered to interview the final two candidates, Peter Larsson told them about how the recruitment committee had approached it. He stressed that it was possible to nominate anyone, and that those proposals should be sent to the recruitment agency whose services the university had procured.

The role played by the agency is clear from a comprehensive mission statement, but Peter Larsson denies that they had anything to do with the actual selection.

– THE CONSULTANTS have in no way intervened. The recruitment committee made the actual selection. We have been assisted by the consultant, who was also tasked with finding more external applicants.

The 13 members stated in a missive that the university board had chosen to “again opt for a closed selection process that is perceived as muddled and vague”. There were demands to restart the process.

But that did not happen.

– No, there was no justification for that. We have identified three strong candidates and done what we had undertaken to do. But we do need to be self-critical. The advertisement was well disseminated and the applicant profile was unambiguous. But I am somewhat concerned about the small number of external applicants, which tells you something about the complexity of the task and the challenges associated with it.

ALL IN ALL, Peter Larsson believes that there is strong support for the future vice-chancellor of the University of Gothenburg, Malin Broberg, who also received the most votes in the consultative assembly. 10 people submitted a blank ballot.

– Now it is about providing the best possible conditions for our new vice-chancellor and pro-vice chancellor.

→Formally, the government appoints the vice-chancellor. But even though the board is in control of the matter, according to the Higher Education Ordinance, lecturers, other employees and students must be consulted. At the University of Gothenburg, the composition of the consultative assembly is as follows: 30 lecturers, 20 other employees and 20 students.

Brief history: For more than 10 years, criticism has been levelled at the process.

2011 80 percent of the consultative assembly voted for Pam Fredman to remain vice-chancellor for an additional three years. There was only one potential candidate, which meant that many of those in the assembly felt they were being steamrolled.

– It was as if we were being consulted solely because it says so in the ordinance, but they were not really interested in what we had to say, said Professor Anders Linde, chair of the consultative assembly at the time.

2014 A significant majority of the consultative assembly supported the proposal to give Pam Fredman their continued confidence up until June 30, 2017. But again, there was criticism of the process. One of the critics was Kristoffer Hellstrand, at the time the Associate Dean of Research at Sahlgrenska Academy, who objected to “the deeply undemocratic election process”, which the board seemed to ignore, he said.

– No other candidates to the most important position at the university could be discussed, not to mention nominated.

At the time, the chair of the board, Cecilia Schelin Seidegård, promised that the process would be reviewed.

2017 When the current vice-chancellor was appointed, there was also criticism voiced regarding the process. Five candidates were announced, but three of them dropped out at an early stage, so only two could be interviewed by the consultative assembly. When one of them, Ole Petter Ottersen, also chose to withdraw his candidacy to become vice-chancellor of Karolinska Institutet instead, the only remaining candidate, Eva Wiberg, was appointed. There were demands for a new process, but the board disagreed and pointed out that both candidates were “fully eligible” as vice-chancellors.

The criticism against the election of pro-vice chancellor was even more scathing. Again, the consultative assembly only got to meet with one single candidate, Professor Mattias Goksör. However, he received extensive support from the assembly, where 22 of the 25 members voted yes. But only 25 of the 70 members participated in the vote.

In a missive, which was signed by 11 assembly members, the handling of the matter of pro-vice chancellor was described as “part of a pattern of threats against collegial influence”. They argued that “the role of the consultative assembly is to rubber stamp decisions that have already been made”. A process that they believed undermines trust in the management, and they demanded that the consultative assembly be taken more seriously.