{"id":14344,"date":"2026-07-17T16:23:09","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T14:23:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.deintegriteitscoordinator.nl\/the-dutch-photography-museum-and-the-new-governance-code-for-culture\/"},"modified":"2026-07-17T16:23:11","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T14:23:11","slug":"the-dutch-photography-museum-and-the-new-governance-code-for-culture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.deintegriteitscoordinator.nl\/en\/the-dutch-photography-museum-and-the-new-governance-code-for-culture\/","title":{"rendered":"The Dutch Photography Museum and the new Governance Code for Culture"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div><\/div>

The court in Rotterdam recently ruled<\/a> 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. <\/p>\n

Reports from staff members<\/p>\n<\/h2>\n

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 As a result, the director was suspended and her access to her email was revoked.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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s performance. There had been only one performance review, in 2021, and that had been very positive. <\/p>\n

Following the dismissal, an external investigation firm was appointed. The court ruled that this firm\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

What went wrong?<\/p>\n<\/h2>\n

Dealing with reports \u2013 whether anonymous or not \u2013 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. <\/p>\n

But it doesn\u2019t 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 \u2013 which was most likely the case \u2013 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. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It is precisely this person who can advise and guide the Supervisory Board through the process surrounding reports. This person:<\/p>\n