Let's Stick to the Facts! | HUN-REN Leadership Systematically Refutes Claims of the Hungarian Academy Staff Forum

26.11.2024

1. HASF’s claim: Balázs Gulyás told Telex that there had been consultations with employees of the research network regarding the submitted draft bill: (https://telex.hu/.../gulyas-balazs-hun-ren-magyar..."According to Balázs Gulyás, HASF's claims are not truthful. Extensive consultations were held with employees of the network, and the draft bill was ultimately welcomed by the heads of all research institutes and centres."

However, according to a statement previously published on the HUN-REN website (https://hun-ren.hu/en/highlighted-news/efficiency-transparency-expertise-the-legislative-framework-for-the-renewal-of-hun):

"Today (7 November), we received the draft bill for review from the Ministry of Culture and Innovation."

We are not aware of any – even extensive – consultations with employees taking place between 7 November and the bill's submission to Parliament on 19 November. At the time of earlier workshops and assessments, even the basic principles of the organisational reform plans were unknown. However, none of the conclusions from these assessments justify the bill's unwarranted centralisation efforts.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: On 7 November, HUN-REN Headquarters sent the draft bill to the heads of its 19 research centres and independent research institutes, requesting that they review it with the involvement of their respective staff and submit the consolidated feedback to the HUN-REN Governing Board. Between 7 and 14 November, the research centre leaders held numerous employee forums. It is therefore evident that staff were widely involved in the consultation process on the draft bill. This is also evident from the fact that HASF was able to publish a detailed position statement referring to the employees of the research network within hours of the bill's submission to Parliament, even overnight.

2. HASF's claim: "There is a certain framework for legislation. Every law has a core textual structure, but the HUN-REN reform draft bill does not mention KEKVA (Public Interest Asset Management Foundation) or foundations at all," Balázs Gulyás told Telex.

The original text sent on 7 November included references to foundations. However, removing this reference did not significantly reduce the similarities to the KEKVA legislation. Moreover, the claim widely circulated in pro-government media—that the overlap is due to technical legal reasons—is unfounded. Our analysis compared the substantive sections, which revealed significant similarities. The current table comparing the amended KEKVA Act and the submitted HUN-REN Bill is available at https://adf2019.com.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: The planned organisational structure of HUN-REN has nothing to do with the KEKVA-type operating model. We have explained this in detail on multiple occasions. Repeating this claim several times does not make it true. In the case of HUN-REN, there is no maintainer-maintained relationship, nor is there a board of trustees. The decision-making body in HUN-REN's governance structure remains the Governing Board, which is primarily composed of academics and will retain the same powers under the proposal as it currently holds. The overlap with KEKVA legislation is limited to the areas of asset transfer, funding mechanisms, and conflict-of-interest rules. These similarities arise because HUN-REN is transitioning from a public budgetary institution to a private-law organisation operating outside the state financial system, with the operational details of this process being formalised. There is no overlap in governance structure, leadership powers, or organisational structure.

3. HASF's claim: "The new HUN-REN organisation will operate on a completely different basis. There will be no maintainer, no board of trustees, and no room for debates on institutional autonomy," said Balázs Gulyás.

In contrast, Section 11 of the bill identifies the holder of the founder's rights: "(2) The Governing Board: 1. shall exercise the founder's rights as provided in this Act." In other words, the Governing Board, which will be established in a manner similar to the boards of trustees of KEKVA foundations, will exercise the founder's rights in the same way as the KEKVA boards of trustees: "(3) The board of trustees shall exercise founder's rights in accordance with this Act," as stated in Act IX of 2021 on Public Interest Asset Management Foundations Performing Public Duty. Therefore, Balázs Gulyás's statement that the newly established Governing Board "will have the same powers as the current Governing Board" is not true. While he is correct in saying that there is no room for debate on institutional autonomy, it is because this structure contains no autonomy whatsoever.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: The powers of the Governing Board under the proposed bill are consistent with those of the HUN-REN Governing Board under the RDI Act. Moreover, the draft bill stipulates that decisions concerning the powers highlighted in the Constitutional Court's 2022 ruling (such as the establishment, restructuring, or closure of institutes, or the approval of research institute budgets) must be approved by a majority of the academic members of the Governing Board. As HUN-REN will no longer operate as a public budgetary institution but rather as a private-law entity, its full autonomy will be ensured by granting the exercise of the founder's rights to the Governing Board, which is composed mainly of academics.

4. HASF's claim: "Decisions concerning the critical powers defined in the Constitutional Court's ruling on academic freedom (such as the approval of institute budgets, the closure, restructuring, or establishment of institutes) require the vote of the majority of the academic members of the Governing Board, and this will not change," says Balázs Gulyás. A similar argument was made by László Bódis, Deputy State Secretary to Minister Balázs Hankó. (https://hirtv.hu/.../onallo-jogallassal-rendelkezo-allami...)

In its Decision 30/2022 (XII. 6.) AB (https://alkotmanybirosag.hu/ugyadatlap/...), the Constitutional Court ruled on a Governing Board with a completely different establishment and composition: "In the Constitutional Court's view, it is a constitutional requirement, arising from previous case-law of the Constitutional Court, that scientific experts should have the right to decide on scientific matters. The challenged provision of the Act empowers the Minister responsible for science policy and the President of the HAS to delegate 6-6 members. At least two thirds of the members must be scientists." The bill deviates from the body analysed in the Court's Decision in every significant aspect: neither the number of members, nor the selection process, nor the proportion of 'scientific experts' align with the Court's Decision. Balázs Gulyás and the Ministry's argument that, according to the Constitutional Court's Decision, the previous structure was (partially) constitutional, and thus the reform will also be constitutional, contradicts basic rules of logic.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: The cited Decision of the Constitutional Court does not specify as a requirement that the size of the Governing Board and the selection of its members must adhere to the procedures established by the regulations in force in 2019. This is evidenced by the fact that both the rules for selecting members of the Governing Board and the size of the Board itself have changed since then, without resulting in any constitutional violations. The bill seeks to ensure, in every possible way, that HUN-REN complies with the constitutional requirement of academic freedom as enshrined in the Fundamental Law of Hungary.

5. HASF's claim: According to Balázs Gulyás, a questionnaire was sent to all employees "to gauge their reactions to this review, their concerns, and their aspirations."

In reality, the questionnaire was distributed well before the draft legislation became public and did not include any specific questions regarding the reform or the proposed new structure.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: This fact proves that HUN-REN sought input from all employees, not just management, during the process of setting strategic directions, even before the draft bill was prepared. Employees actively took advantage of the opportunity to provide feedback, submitting 1,374 responses. In addition, all staff were able to contribute to the consultation process on the draft bill through the heads of their respective research centres and institutes.

6. HASF's claim: "As a unified network, we are a more effective negotiating partner with the government of the day," says Balázs Gulyás.

In reality, HUN-REN has always had the opportunity to negotiate with the Government. It is hard to believe that the President of HUN-REN, appointed by the Prime Minister, would aim to create some kind of power counterweight to the Government and the Minister, and we are not aware of any public criticism made by him, for example, concerning the severe underfunding of the network.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: HUN-REN's leadership is not seeking to create a 'power counterweight' to the Government. On the contrary, it is offering a partnership to the Government.

7. HASF's claim: "The increased funding will come into effect from 1 April, but the key steps of the transformation must be implemented for this to happen." 

We are not aware of any regulation that prohibits additional funding for the current system, which was also imposed on us earlier. Linking fair funding to the transformation is simply blackmail, a tactic the Government is also employing with the remaining public universities, as seen with the Budapest University of Technology and Economics and likely planned for Eötvös Loránd University.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: the renewal of HUN-REN was initiated by HUN-REN itself, based on the results of a 10-month international review. HUN-REN's leadership presented a value proposition to the Government which, if implemented, would result in a more efficient and effective research network. Increasing funding alone will not achieve this goal, as the international review has shown.

8. HASF's claim: Balázs Gulyás and the Deputy State Secretary's assertions that the submitted bill is based on the results of the international review have already been addressed on several occasions. The conclusions of the review, conducted with a methodology that is otherwise open to question, did not indicate the need for unwarranted centralisation or the privatisation of the network.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: the international review was conducted in accordance with international scientific standards and methodologies. Commenting on the review, Alexander Zehnder, Professor at ETH Zurich, emphasised that HUN-REN could only achieve its goals by renewing its operational structure and processes. He recommended that HUN-REN's leadership consider international best practices. The analysis of these international examples clearly showed that operating within an independent legal entity, while preserving the autonomy of the research institutes, is the optimal approach.

9. HASF's claim: "At the initiative of the President and CEO of HUN-REN, and with the authorisation of the Governing Board, regular discussions have been held with the Government since October 2024 regarding the renewal of the organisation and the establishment of a new legal framework for significantly more efficient operations," reads HUN-REN's statement. (https://hun-ren.hu/en/highlighted-news/a-historic-opportunity-for-renewal-hun-ren-welcomes-the-submission-of-the-bill-on)

Given that the Ministry presented the draft legislation on 7 November, the bill appears to have been cobbled together in barely a month.

HASF's claim is a criticism of something positive the Ministry has done. The reality is as follows: The bill was indeed drafted quickly by the Government, and HUN-REN appreciates the preparatory work. As a result, the research network will be able to access the significantly increased funding, which has been raised by 50%, as early as next year. Had the codification of the bill been delayed by several months, the increase in funding would not have been realised until 2026 at the earliest.

10. HASF's claim: According to HUN-REN's propagandistic victory report: "The draft stipulates that the appointment of the first (new) HUN-REN Governing Board will be subject to review by the National Science Policy Council" – but not subsequent members' appointments.

HASF is once again arguing against autonomy. The reality is as follows: The founding rights will be exercised by the HUN-REN Governing Board, which is predominantly composed of academics. The new members of the Governing Board will be elected by the Board itself, with no further involvement from the Government. This is an additional guarantee of autonomy. The National Science Policy Council is an advisory and proposal-making body to the Government, as stipulated in the RDI Act, which includes not only the leaders of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS) and HUN-REN, but also representatives from other actors in the research ecosystem: universities and the business sector.

11. HASF's claim: It is also revealed that "individuals delegated by the heads of research institutions will have consultative rights in the work of the Governing Board," i.e., those delegated by the heads appointed by the President.

HASF is arguing against the request of the heads of research institutes. The reality is as follows: This proposed amendment has been included in its current form at the request of the heads of HUN-REN institutions, ensuring that the perspectives of research institutes are more effectively represented in the Governing Board. According to the draft, the heads of research institutions may be appointed following consultation with the Governing Board and the Vice-Chairs responsible for each scientific field.

12. HASF's claim: The proposal states that "a Collegium of Institutional Leaders, composed of the heads of the research institutions, will also be established," with members appointed by the President, yet it will still lack decision-making powers.

HASF is once again arguing against the request of the heads of research institutes. The reality is as follows: This proposed amendment was included at the request of the heads of HUN-REN institutions, ensuring closer cooperation between the Governing Board and the leaders of the research institutions. Once again, HASF is questioning an element that was proposed by the heads of the research institutions themselves.

13. HASF's claim: "Based on the Government’s decision, as part of HUN-REN’s renewal, the organisation’s public funding will see a significant 50% increase (HUF 18 billion) from 2025, reaching HUF 97 billion by 2027. Furthermore, as outlined in the draft, the Government is dedicated to purchasing the real estate assets used by the research institutes from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and transferring them to HUN-REN." However, the funds for this purpose are not earmarked in the 2025 budget figures.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: On page 3 of the draft 2025 budget, it is stated that "professionals active in the science policy sector can expect a wage increase of HUF 18 billion next year." Additionally, the HUN-REN budget includes the HUF 3 billion in founding assets and transformation costs, as promised by the Government.

14. HASF's claim: According to a news item on the HUN-REN website (https://hun-ren.hu/en/highlighted-news/proposals-from-the-joint-declaration-and-the-governing-boards-statement): "The leaders were briefed on the establishment of the Transformation Programme Office, its operations, and the structure of the body overseeing the transformation, along with its thematic sub-programmes. The Programme Steering Committee, the highest decision-making body, is chaired by Balázs Gulyás, President of HUN-REN. The Directors-General of the largest research centres in each of the three scientific fields have also been invited to participate in the Programme." Thus, in addition to the Governing Board, Balázs Gulyás has not only appointed himself to the negotiating delegation but also considers himself the most suitable person to lead the Programme Steering Committee, in the spirit of centralisation.

HASF argues (again) against autonomy. The reality is as follows: The President is the responsible leader of HUN-REN, and it is entirely natural for him to personally lead and oversee the processes related to the transition, as he will be held accountable by the HUN-REN community as the highest-ranking leader.

15. HASF's claim: "The President and CEO of HUN-REN continue to provide the research community with detailed updates on the timely steps involved in the renewal of HUN-REN."

The key elements are precisely what is missing from the draft bill. We still know nothing about the structure, and the research community has not yet received either the draft organisational and operational rules or the draft founding charter.

HASF's claim is false. The reality is as follows: The drafting of the founding charter and the organisational and operational rules is planned for the coming weeks. Operational consultations with the heads of research institutions to finalise the details began over a week ago, following an agreement on 14 November regarding the proposed amendments to the draft law. These amendments have since been fully incorporated into the draft by the Ministry.

However, Balázs Gulyás remains silent on the loss of EU funding. Meanwhile, HASF continues to demand that no new law on the research network be adopted until the EU reopens the Erasmus and Horizon programmes to universities that were excluded from these schemes.

According to the bill submitted to Parliament, HUN-REN is a legal entity with a special legal status, to which the general rules of the Civil Code applicable to legal entities will apply as background legislation, replacing the previous rules for foundations under the Civil Code as outlined in the earlier draft.

Once again, I respectfully ask the staff of the scientific research network to make well-founded, factual, and truthful statements both to the employees of HUN-REN and to the public.

I also urge members of the research community and all our employees not to rely on biased, fact-free social media posts from organisations such as HASF, but to seek information from their elected leaders, the HUN-REN HQ staff, and the HUN-REN website.

Share