The court in Rotterdam recently ruled that the Supervisory Board of the Dutch Photography Museum (Nederlands Fotomuseum) had acted in a seriously culpable manner by dismissing its director, Birgit Donker, without valid grounds for dismissal. The Fotomuseum was ordered to publish and circulate a correction and to pay her compensation of EUR 400.000. This alone is a substantial sum for this museum, not even including the costs of the investigators and legal support.
Reports from staff members
What led up to this? It is reported that, in June 2025, the Supervisory Board had received reports from a number of staff members regarding a lack of social safety. They were allegedly put under pressure to influence the results of a staff survey. In addition, the director is said to have withheld information. As a result, the director was suspended and her access to her email was revoked. After the Supervisory Board had conducted its own investigation into these reports, Donker was dismissed, whereupon she took the matter to court.
The court recently ruled that the dismissal was unjustified. This was because six external investigations had already been carried out, none of which had indicated any problems with the corporate culture. The Supervisory Board had always been full of praise for Donker’s performance. There had been only one performance review, in 2021, and that had been very positive.
Following the dismissal, an external investigation firm was appointed. The court ruled that this firm’s investigation report was insufficiently objective, due to suggestive presentation and questioning, and was not sufficiently substantiated by facts. The evidence that the Supervisory Board further claimed to possess was not shared with the court on privacy grounds. Furthermore, according to the judge, it had not been established that any information had been withheld.
The judge did not wish to detract from the perceptions of some employees regarding the directive leadership style, the high workload and the drastic measures taken by Donker. As a result, some current and former employees did harbour resentment towards the director. Others, however, appreciated her approach. According to the judge, the board should have taken measures other than dismissal. The judge also considered it reprehensible that Donker was denied access to her emails, meaning she was unable to defend herself properly against the allegations.
What went wrong?
Dealing with reports – whether anonymous or not – concerning social safety requires the necessary knowledge, skills and experience. This is often not part of the profile used to select supervisors and directors. It is not uncommon for a Supervisory Board to panic when reports come in and to take hasty decisions.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. European and Dutch legislation has, in fact, already provided a solution. In 2024, the Fotomuseum had 44 paid staff members, as well as 12 volunteers and interns. If the volunteers and interns received an expense allowance and were required to follow instructions – which was most likely the case – then, according to the definition in the Whistleblower Protection Act, there were more than 49 staff members. The Fotomuseum was therefore legally obliged to appoint an independent/impartial person to receive and follow up on reports from whistleblowers and to manage the central reporting register. This is a legal obligation. But it is a good idea in any case.
It is precisely this person who can advise and guide the Supervisory Board through the process surrounding reports. This person:
- Keeps the situation calm. They know it is actually a good sign when reports are made; there is absolutely no reason to panic.
- Maintains contact with the whistleblowers, whether anonymous or not, asks follow-up questions and keeps them informed of progress regarding their report.
- Advises the directors and supervisors on how to deal with the reporter(s) and the accused.
- Conducts a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is sufficient concrete evidence to launch a full investigation.
- Advises the Supervisory Board on a range of possible interventions, including mediation, coaching and the various types of investigation.
- Advises on formulating the terms of reference for the investigation and selecting the investigation agency.
- Monitors the process of hearing both sides of the argument.
- Understands the difference between a directive leadership style and a lack of social safety, even though the distinction might be hard to make.
The Fotomuseum could certainly have profited from such an integrity coordinator.
The Governance Code for Culture
In a background article on the case, NRC notes that the new Cultural Governance Code was presented just before the court ruling. The Whistleblowers’ Centre also highlighted this on LinkedIn. Does it offer a solution for situations of this kind?
The code states that anyone within the organisation can approach the external confidential adviser with suspicions of misconduct or irregularities.
Now, the Fotomuseum had appointed an external confidential adviser. This person can provide support and information. That is extremely valuable, and we wholeheartedly recommend it, but it is not enough. There must also be an independent and impartial person who receives and follows up on reports.
The code also states that a point of contact within the Supervisory Board must exist in the event of irregularities within the management or the Supervisory Board itself. But is this member of the Supervisory Board sufficiently impartial and independent if a report concerns the Supervisory Board itself? And what if a report is received that does not relate to the board of directors or the Supervisory Board? Is anyone within the Supervisory Board with sufficient experienced to handle reports properly? Or should this person seek assistance from an expert in this field?
There are now countless examples where this failed, particularly in the cultural sector. It does not look as though this new Cultural Governance Code will provide sufficient relief in this regard. At the Fotomuseum, too, things went wrong precisely when the Supervisory Board took it upon itself to handle the reports.
Has your Board of Trustees or Supervisory Board already appointed an independent/impartial person to handle reports? We’d be happy to discuss this with you. Contact us via www.deintegriteitscoordinator.nl or send an email to info@deintegriteitscoordinator.nl .
