Writing Letters

Staff and students influence their institution’s policies through the co-determination process. Co-determination bodies talk with executives on a wide range of issues and try to leave their mark on the institution’s policy in these discussions. It does so mainly by exercising its rights of consent, advice, information and initiative. These are important rights that allow co-determination to influence the executive’s decisions (to a greater or lesser extent). But how does this work in practice? It is not as if the executive simply knows what the co-determination wants, and in what manner they want it. A large part of this is the consultation meetings (read more about them here). But not everything can be communicated there either. Moreover, it is useful for co-determination if executives can also prepare properly for the meeting. After all, a sensible executive will rarely agree to a proposal they have not had the opportunity to study. In practice, letters are therefore used at almost all institutions. Although this is not required by law, it is a convenient way of working for both the executive and co-determination.

In this guide, we take you through everything there is to know about writing letters. We first briefly explain why it is advisable to work with letters to communicate with the executive in co-determination. We cover the types of letters you can expect to send and receive. Then we go into what a good letter roughly looks like. We conclude with advice on how to make the most of working with letters and some examples.

A letter, what does that look like?
First of all, what is a letter anyway? It varies, but at the very least it is a document archived as official communication between the co-determination and the executive. This usually takes the form of pdf files sent over the mail. These letters are often assigned a number, or a date when they were sent. This is useful because it clearly draws the line between official communication (letters) and other communication (regular e-mails with logistical questions, for example ). So be sure to make sound agreements with your director on how to arrange this. Loket Medezeggenschap is happy to think along with you, feel free to contact us!

Why letters?
Letters are, along with consultation meetings, the most common way in which the co-determination has (official) contact with the executive and vice versa. It is a way to share information, communicate wishes, and ask questions in a precise way. It is also the way the co-determination gives or withholds consent, advises positively or negatively, and introduces initiatives. Besides the fact that letters are often very practical, it is sometimes also a legal requirement to use them. This is the case, for instance, when workers councils submit an initiative proposal (WOR art. 23 paragraph 3).

Letters are often used in combination with a consultation meeting. In a letter, you first write down exactly what you, as the council or committee, want and why. Then you can immediately discuss the content during the consultation meeting. The details might be different based on the rights you have on the file in question. Later in this guide, we go into more detail on how this can be done for each right.

At this point, it is important to mention that letters are not used everywhere. Sometimes this is because it is less important, as is often the case at the programme level. But sometimes this is also because the director wants to “get a piece of policy through the co-determination process quickly”. In that case, for instance, the co-determination body is urged to “already give its approval” during a consultation meeting. As a co-determination body, always retain the right to think things over and find proper wording in a letter. Don’t let yourself be cornered!

What kind of letters?
The letters sent by the co-determination can have different functions. It depends on the file they belong to, the objective the co-determination has in mind and the executive’s position. In addition, the co-determination does not only send letters, but it also receives them (from the executive). In this section, we will elaborate on the types of letters you can expect to send and receive. We will not go into the details of file handling; we have a separate guide for that.

You can think of a dossier or file as a subject that the co-determination body and the executive are discussing. At both the programme level and the decentral (faculty/academy) level, the OER (Education and Examination Regulations), for example, is an important file. At the central (university/college) level, the institutional budget, for example, is a file. There are essentially only four types of files:

1. The consent file: a subject on which the co-determination body has the right of consent,
2. The advisory file: a subject on which the co-determination body has the right of advice
3. The initiative file: a subject on which the co-determination body itself starts the discussion and therefore flows from the right of initiative.
4. The information file: a subject on which the executive merely informs the co-determination body. There is then of course a possibility to use the right of initiative.

Letters in a consent- or advisory file
For files on which the co-determination body has the right to consent or advise, the executive sends the co-determination a letter requesting advice or consent. This is the “official starting shot” of the file. This letter often consists of only a few elements: the subject (e.g. the OER), the right the co-determination body has on the file (advice or consent), and the desired response period. The actual content (the matter about which a decision is requested, e.g. the OER) is often in the annexes/attachments. This is what the co-determination body then works on. More on what that can look like can be found here.

The co-determination body in turn writes letters back. These are often quite simple. If the co-determination body already has an opinion (agree or disagree, positive or negative advice), it will state this opinion, and often something will be mentioned about the expected term in which certain matters will be settled. If this opinion is not yet fully formed, the letter will mainly ask questions about the file. These can be clarifying questions (‘what does article 7.9b mean in practice?’), questions for consideration (‘why has this particular interpretation been chosen?’) or whatever else the co-determination body may want to know!

The letters in advisory and consent files after the aforementioned opening shot can best be regarded as a conversation. The co-determination body responds to the executive and vice versa. The final letter in the file discussing the initial request is a letter from the co-determination where they share and explain their final opinion.

Letters in an initiative file
In subjects where the co-determination body uses the right of initiative to make a proposal, the first letter is written by the co-determination. In this letter, the council describes its initiative and explains why it is a good idea. This is explained in more detail later in this document.

As with advisory and consent files, the continuation of this is a kind of conversation: the executive again responds to the proposal, and through letters and consultation meetings, a decision is finally reached. The last letter of the initiative file is often the letter in which the executive shares and explains its final judgment. Of course, the co-determination body does not have to settle for this. You can try to continue the discussion and still convince the executive. But as we know, the executive is not obliged to adopt initiative proposals.

Letters in an information file
With some subjects, the co-determination body has no formal rights, but knowledge of the subject is crucial for the proper performance of the co-determination body’s tasks. In this case, the executive must share this information with the co-determination body on its own initiative (WHW art. 9.32 paragraph 5; WHW art. 10.19 paragraph 6). This is usually done with a letter, but another method may be chosen. This letter often does not require a response from the co-determination body. At most, the executive may ask to put it on the agenda of the upcoming consultation meeting for further explanation.

Sometimes the executive board and the co-determination body disagree on what information the co-determination body reasonably needs to fulfil its duties. In that case, the council can request certain information (via a letter). This is often how the “right to information” is exercised. These letters describe what information the co-determination body would like to have and argue why it would be “reasonably” necessary for the exercise of their duties. Sometimes this letter chooses to condemn the fact that this information has not yet been shared. That is your right. You don’t want to let them walk all over you. As mentioned earlier, the executive must share any information that is “reasonably necessary for the exercise of the function of co-determination” without you prompting them to do so. But don’t go too far: be precise but remain professional.

Now, if at that point the executive does not share the information, and you insist that the information is needed, you can file a dispute with the National Commission for Disputes in Higher Education (LCGHO). You can find out more here. If you are considering taking this step, also check this guide.

Other letters
Official communication between the co-determination and the executive naturally doesn’t solely have to regard consent-, advisory-, initiative-, or information files. While it isn’t common, letters outside of these categories are possible! The most common form of this occurs when a co-determination body wants to inform the executive of a certain standpoint without connecting a proposal or demand to it. Co-determination bodies can, for example, also share their policy plan with the executive by means of a letter.

A good letter
What makes a letter a good letter? There is no ultimate template to follow when communicating with your executive through letters. There are however a few considerations to keep in mind. We will quickly go over these. At the end of this guide we will give you a couple of examples of what letters might look like.

Unambiguous and concise
A good letter is unambiguous, leaving little room for interpretation. It should be clear what the co-determination body wants. A number of elements are important to present as clearly as possible:

• Why are you sending this letter? What file is it related to?
• If it concerns a consent or advisory dossier: do you consent/advise positively, not, or not yet? And especially why?
• What exactly do you want? And why?
• If you’re responding to a letter from the executive: what exactly are you responding to?

If it is not clear what the letter is about and what exactly you want to achieve, responding is more difficult for the executive. Especially when it comes to consent- or advisory files, it is very important to explicitly state what (currently) is the council’s position. If you don’t state this explicitly, you run the risk of your letter being misinterpreted. Remember: explicit does not mean tactless; be precise but remain professional and tactical in your wording.

Argumentation
It is important not only to explain clearly what you want, but also why. Even better: you have to explain why the executive should want it too! The latter is especially important in advisory and initiative dossiers because these are not binding instruments. A strong argument describes why something has to change about the current situation, why the change you have suggested is the best way, and what the executive will gain from it. Strong arguments base themselves, for example, on….

• The institution’s vision (e.g. ‘This institution commends itself for its progressive vision in terms of sustainability, so actually quite strange that we still use paper cups’),
• (Inter)national standards (e.g. ‘The European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to education, and fair selection procedures for NF programmes are an important part to ensure that right’),
• (National) reports (e.g: ‘In the student pact drafted under the leadership of Marriëtte Hamer , we read that this is an important aspect in addressing (sexually) transgressive behaviour’),
• Good examples from other institutions (e.g. ‘At the Medezeggenschapscollege, they have been doing it this way for a number of years, and they are very satisfied there’)

How to proceed?
A letter is only part of the way co-determination exercises its function. A letter never stands alone. At the end of a letter, always answer the question ‘how to proceed next?’ Often this takes the form of an invitation to discuss this at the consultation meeting on dd-mm-yyyy. But even if there is nothing more to discuss in this file after this letter (if you give consent, for example), it is wise to look back for a moment and refer to the future. Consider, for instance, discussing how the process around the file went, and how you hope things will go in the future. You may well opt for firm wording here (condemning the course of events, for example). After all, you shouldn’t let them walk all over you! Still, the same applies here: be precise, but remain professional.

Ultimately, making the best use of the letter, in combination with the consultation meeting, to achieve your goals is truly a skill. Learning to play the political game of co-determination takes time and requires attention. We have written handbooks on file handling and consultation meetings , and there are several training providers who provide training on this. Furthermore, Loket Medezeggenschap is also happy to support you with such matters. Still, this political game is mostly learnt through experience. Good luck!

Sample letters
We provide some sample letters below. These are linked to imaginary cases but could give you some indication of what we have discussed in this guide. For readability, the letters have been shortened to one A4 sheet; a good letter is concise, but not necessarily short.

First , a letter from a Programme Committee to the Programme Director about certain parts of the OER. The Programme Committee has a right of consent to parts of the OER, they have the right of advice to the remaining parts. This letter is about the advisory part. As such, this letter is a response to an earlier request from the Programme Director to exercise the right of advice on the OER. What is remarkable is that no argumentation is given (anymore), which has probably already been given in an earlier letter. This letter is merely concluding (for the file).