The rector of the University of Leuven is chosen via elections every four years (70% weight for votes by professors, 30% for students/teachers). The chosen rector then assigns a team of several vice-rectors. This seems to be working quite well and sounds good to me! Read more in this Dutch news artikel.

I've heard some people demand that the entire board should be elected. I don't agree with this and I'll try to explain why.

First of all, the rector is the scientific head of the university so should definitely be elected, no compromise. But I also believe we should not ignore society's stake in the university. Our society spends a lot of money on our universities (yes, it should probably be more). I think society should therefore be represented as well. At least one member of the board should be appointed by the ministry of education (through the RvT).

I don't believe we should place ourselves above society and demand we elect the entire board. We don't want to create an island here. Universities should be scientifically independent, but not completely autonomous from society.

Finally, about the procedural stuff, that is not the most important thing right now, I think. If we can agree that we at least move towards an elected rector magnificus, we can debate about the procedures later. The KU Leuven situation could be a good starting point.

I tend to agree, but the majority should be elected IMO. Let's say one appointed member and the rest elected. Or maybe in equal amounts. But not majority appointed.

@rubiovaughan The election of the board by students and staff is in my opinion not 'putting ourselves above society'. The university should be autonomous, because this creates scientific independence.
To prevent the 'island' we have to continuously prove our link to society, hence the demand "2. Change of the allocation model: finance based on input, not on efficiency"

Maybe the appointed member could have an advisory role?

As for the election of the rector magnificus, I think the Leuven model isn't democratic enough. It should be one man/woman/whatever-you-want-to-call-yourself, one vote, that simple. After the election the rector might form a team of people who will help him manage the university, much like the American president appoints his cabinet.

This isn't fully democratic but I'd argue that it creates a board that is somewhat more cohesive than an entirely elected board might be given possible differences within such a group.

I’d rather the board have an accountable recall able representative function and act as central council between teacher, students and other employee councils. Overall power should be decentralized and debureacratized. Elections of each representatives should be held by the respective sections of the university.

@thomaalmoes Agree with you about the cohesion, but disagree about one man/woman one vote. I think the staff of the university is there for the long term (or should be), and students are not always as familiar with the university, its structure and its academic goals. Perhaps a different distribution than Leuven could be used, but I think the academic staff should have the majority vote (even though I'm a student myself).

Rubio, I have to admit that sounds better. Maybe 60% of the votes should go to the teachers, professors and staff and 40% to the students. My initial proposal came from a fear that professors would have a disproportionate amount of power as in Leuven, even though probably they are most familiar with the university and its issues.
70% just seems to much, especially with teachers being thrown in the same category as students.

I agree with Thom: one must bear in mind that the staff depend on the university for their income, and in many cases stay there for much longer than students, so they are probably more directly and more long-term affected by board decisions.