Already several months have passed since the Executive Board (EB) has sent their proposal for a Binding Study Advice (BSA) of 36 ECTS to the staff-student council (SSC). This first proposal was rejected by the SSC, on account of lack of clarity on the reasons of the EB for implementation of a BSA. After adjustment of the proposal, the EB submitted it again to the SSC. The SSC used a ‘no, unless’ for this proposal. They rejected the proposal, unless the EB agreed upon setting up a monitor group that evaluated the BSA. A crucial point of this condition was that this monitor group had right on a binding advice itself whenever the EB wants to raise the amount of ECTS, since no council within the university has any legal rights when the EB would want to raise the ECTS.
However, the EB did not want to give in to giving a monitor group a binding advice, and asked the SSC to reconsider their conditions. The SSC decided to do so and adjusted their conditions and asked for a (not binding) advice right for the monitor group and the SSC itself, extended longer than the evaluation period of three year. In this way, the SSC could make sure that they would be involved in the process, if the EB ever would decide to raise the amount of ECTS or alter the BSA as such.
Again the EB did not want to give in to the conditions of the SSC. They did not want to give the monitor group and the SSC advice right that would stay even after the evaluation period of three year and stated that they would start an official dispute if the SSC rejected the proposal again.
After a tough discussion, the SSC decided to stick to their conditions this time. They rejected the proposed BSA, unless the EB agreed upon giving them lasting advice right. Momentarily, it remains to be seen whether the EB really starts an official dispute and what the outcome will be.