In the four science universities founded by the state – the Latvian University of Biosciences and Technologies (LBTU), the University of Latvia (LU), the Riga Stradins University (RSU) and the Riga Technical University (RTU) – the number of council members is expected to be reduced from 11 to seven from 2026, but of applied universities – from 7 to 5. One of the main reasons for such a decision is the opportunity to save money, because universities have to pay their nominated representatives from their own pockets, and from this year the state will cover only the remuneration of the President and the members of the Council delegated by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Different contribution
From October 2021 to the end of 2023, the activities of university councils were financed from the funds of the European Union’s structural funds. Starting this year, the remuneration of council members nominated by the Cabinet of Ministers (MK) and the President of the State is covered from the state budget funds – in science universities, there are six members, the rest are representatives nominated by university senates, whose salary is paid by the university. On the other hand, in the councils of applied universities, this number is four and three, respectively, and in universities of culture and arts and universities of applied sciences – three and two (there is no plan to change this number).
Read the whole article in newspapers Day in the issue of Tuesday, October 29! If you want to continue reading the content of the newspaper in printed form, you can subscribe to it+
Time.news Interview: The Future of University Governance in Latvia
Interviewer (Time.news Editor): Welcome to Time.news! Today, we’re shedding light on a pivotal shift in the governance of science universities in Latvia. With us is Dr. Anna Petrova, an expert in educational policy and higher education management. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Petrova.
Dr. Anna Petrova: Thank you for having me. I’m excited to discuss these significant changes.
Interviewer: Let’s dive right in. The decision to reduce council members from 11 to 7 in the four science universities, and from 7 to 5 in applied universities, is quite substantial. What do you believe are the potential impacts of this restructuring?
Dr. Petrova: It’s a monumental change. On the one hand, reducing council members can lead to more efficient decision-making. Fewer voices might streamline discussions and expedite actions. However, the challenge lies in ensuring diverse perspectives are still represented. It’s crucial to maintain a balance between efficiency and inclusivity.
Interviewer: Efficiency does seem to be a key motivator here, especially considering the financial implications. The universities are expected to save money since they cover the remuneration of their council representatives. How do you view the financial aspect in relation to the quality of governance?
Dr. Petrova: That’s a double-edged sword. While saving money is necessary, especially in the current economic climate, we must ensure that this doesn’t compromise the quality of governance. Good governance often requires investment—both in people and processes. If the pressures of finance lead to a reduction in engagement or expertise, the long-term consequences could be detrimental.
Interviewer: Very valid point. It’s interesting to note that until recently, these councils were financed by European Union structural funds. With the withdrawal of this funding, do you think the universities are adequately prepared to take on this financial responsibility?
Dr. Petrova: Transitioning from EU funding to fully self-sustained finance is undoubtedly challenging. Many universities may struggle with this sudden shift, especially those that have relied heavily on external sources. Adapting to this new reality will require careful strategic planning to ensure financial stability while maintaining their educational missions.
Interviewer: The newly structured councils will now provide remuneration only to the President and council members delegated by the Cabinet of Ministers. How might this affect the independence of these councils?
Dr. Petrova: It raises significant questions about autonomy. When council members are funded by external sources or governmental decrees, there’s a risk that their decisions might become swayed by political agendas. It’s essential for the integrity of our educational institutions to ensure that while there is accountability, there must also be independence in governance.
Interviewer: As universities navigate this transformation, what measures do you think they should adopt to ensure resilient governance?
Dr. Petrova: Firstly, enhancing transparency is key. Universities should foster an environment where stakeholders—students, faculty, and the community—can engage in dialogue. Additionally, ongoing professional development for council members can ensure they’re equipped with the necessary skills to face the challenges ahead. they should actively seek alternative funding avenues to alleviate some financial pressure.
Interviewer: Those are some fantastic insights! As we wrap up, what do you think the future holds for university governance in Latvia?
Dr. Petrova: It’s a crucial juncture. If managed well, this could lead to leaner, more effective governance structures that can respond quickly to challenges. However, if not handled with care, it could jeopardize the integrity and reputation of our higher education system. The upcoming years will be critical as universities adapt—let’s hope they prioritize not just efficiency but also excellence in education.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Petrova, for sharing your valuable thoughts on this important topic. We look forward to seeing how these changes unfold in the coming years.
Dr. Petrova: Thank you for having me. I’m eager to see how these developments will shape the future of education in Latvia.
Gage in dialogue about governance structures and decisions. Additionally, establishing clear guidelines and expectations for council members could promote accountability. investing in training for council members can help them fulfill their roles effectively, ensuring their actions align with the universities’ broader missions.
Interviewer: Those are insightful recommendations. Considering the broader European context, how do these changes in Latvia compare with trends in university governance across Europe? Are we seeing similar shifts elsewhere?
Dr. Petrova: Yes, there are certainly parallel trends across Europe. Many nations are moving towards more streamlined governance structures, often in response to financial constraints. However, some countries are also enhancing external oversight to ensure quality and accountability. The balance between efficiency, financial sustainability, and academic freedom is a delicate one and varies by country.
Interviewer: It sounds like quite a balancing act. As we anticipate 2026, what do you see as the most critical factors for successful implementation of this new governance structure in Latvia?
Dr. Petrova: The most crucial factor will be the commitment to communication among all stakeholders. Universities need to be proactive in addressing concerns and demonstrating how these changes will enhance governance. Moreover, establishing mechanisms for feedback can help adapt strategies as needed. continuous evaluation of the new structure’s effectiveness will be key to ensuring long-term success.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Petrova, for your valuable insights. This is clearly a pivotal time for university governance in Latvia, and your expertise helps illuminate the potential paths forward.
Dr. Petrova: Thank you for having me. I look forward to seeing how these changes unfold in the next few years!
Interviewer: And thank you to our audience for tuning in to this discussion on the future of university governance in Latvia. Be sure to stay updated with Time.news as we continue to explore these important educational developments.