In December 2019, the Rector of SDU set up the Committee on Co-determination and Involvement. The committee was tasked with making recommendations for how co-determination and involvement can be strengthened within the University’s organisational structure with its single-strand management hierarchy.
The committee was disbanded after submitting its report and a set of initiatives and recommendations in September 2020.
Following a broad consultation in the autumn of 2020 with SDU’s Liaison Committee, Health and Safety Committee, the student organisation ‘De Studerende i Centrum’, the University Council, academic councils, department councils, PhD committees and study boards, the Executive Board decided in March 2021 on who has special responsibility for implementing the initiatives and recommendations: SDU Human Resource Services and SDU Communications are working on initiatives for recommendations 1-4. The responsibility for implementing initiatives under recommendations 5-9 lies with SDU’s management team and the collegiate bodies.
However, the implementation of the initiatives and recommendations in 2021 was marked by the lockdown of the University due to COVID-19.
The implementation of initiatives under the recommendations was mid-term evaluated in the fall of 2022 and will be finally evaluated in the fall of 2025.
SDU’s nine recommendations on co-determination and involvement:
Greater communication efforts are needed in connection with elections. This applies to three phases:
a) before the election, in order to raise awareness among staff and students of the election
b) during the election campaign period, where the various lists can announce their policies and engage in debate with other lists
c) announcement of the election result and a presentation of the elected candidates.
Feedback should be given to collegiate bodies in relation to previously held hearings or discussions, in order to make any impact of these more visible. This will allow the members of the collegiate bodies to follow how the various cases pan out. This can be achieved in practice by making feedback on hearings a fixed item on the agenda, so that a report is given on the status of cases that have previously been on the agenda at each meeting.
In cases of particular importance, a system could be developed to make it clear which hearings have taken place in the relevant bodies and which comments have come from the various bodies. However, it is recommended that the use of such a system should take into account the significant use of resources associated with it.