{"id":14580,"date":"2026-10-25T12:02:45","date_gmt":"2026-10-25T11:02:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.deintegriteitscoordinator.nl\/misconduct-and-disadvantaged-at-a-municipality-new-investigation-report-by-huis\/"},"modified":"2026-10-25T12:02:45","modified_gmt":"2026-10-25T11:02:45","slug":"misconduct-and-disadvantaged-at-a-municipality-new-investigation-report-by-huis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.deintegriteitscoordinator.nl\/en\/misconduct-and-disadvantaged-at-a-municipality-new-investigation-report-by-huis\/","title":{"rendered":"Misconduct and Disadvantaged at a Municipality: New Investigation Report by Huis"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div><\/div>

In July 2026, the Whistleblower Protection Board released another investigative report on a whistleblower case involving a municipality. Once again, the investigation examined both the alleged misconduct and the retaliation against the whistleblower. The Whistleblower Center reached a different conclusion than the court and drew attention to a number of important and interesting issues. <\/p>\n

This case involves a financial policy advisor at a medium-sized municipality in the Netherlands. He suspected that the provision of information and the decision-making process regarding a reintegration project had not been handled properly. He claimed to have been disadvantaged after filing a report. The Whistleblower Protection Office investigated<\/a> the matter. <\/p>\n

The Project<\/u><\/p>\n

In 2021, the municipality decided to invest in the health and well-being of its residents by launching a wellness project with an annual budget of 1.2 million euros. In the spring of 2021, discussions were held with the chairperson of a foundation regarding a reintegration project for municipal employees who are unable to work and municipal welfare recipients. In December 2021, the foundation was commissioned by the municipality to investigate this further. The research budget was capped at 135,000 euros, later adjusted to 120,000 euros. On May 24, 2022, one day before a new Municipal Executive was to be installed (!), the foundation was commissioned to carry out the reintegration project. The contract was signed by the foundation\u2019s chairperson and the then-alderman for Social Affairs. The feasibility study was not yet complete at that time; the final report was not issued until late June 2022. \u201cNaturally,\u201d the outcome of the study was positive, and a month later, at its request, the foundation received a startup budget of EUR 80,000 from the municipality. <\/p>\n

In the summer of 2022, the municipality proposed to the municipal college that it enter into an agreement with the foundation for a maximum of EUR 750,000. In that case, a European tender would not be necessary. On September 20, 2022, the (new) municipal executive approved an addendum to the agreement of May 24 that sets this forth. However, this addendum was never signed. Consequently, only the agreement of May 24, 2022, is formally in effect. <\/p>\n

Conflict of interest?<\/u><\/p>\n

On November 9, 2022, the new city council sent a letter to the former alderman for Social Affairs, who had signed the agreement with the foundation earlier that year in his capacity as alderman. They had heard that the former alderman might have the opportunity to take a position with the foundation, and they advised him against it due to the risk of (the appearance of) a conflict of interest. The former alderman responded that he had been asked to act as a sort of ambassador to promote the intervention method to municipalities and companies. He saw no risk of (the appearance of) a conflict of interest in this, because he would not be working for the municipality itself. He did, however, indicate that he would begin working as a volunteer for the foundation as of January 1, 2023. He later stated to investigators from the Whistleblowers\u2019 Office (Huis) that he received payment for this work at a verbally agreed-upon hourly rate. <\/p>\n

The reports<\/u><\/p>\n

In September 2022, the first payments from the participation budget were made to the foundation. This raised questions for the financial policy advisor who managed this budget, as he was unaware of either the reintegration project or the foundation. He therefore checked with his immediate supervisor and decided to conduct his own investigation. He then discussed his concerns about the decision-making process with his immediate and senior supervisors. And in November 2022, he also discussed them with the (new) alderman for Social Affairs. <\/p>\n

End of Project<\/u><\/p>\n

In November 2023, the municipality and the foundation finally agreed that the agreement dated May 24, 2022, had been settled and had been terminated as of September 15, 2023. In total, the municipality paid 1.7 million euros for the entire reintegration project in 2022\/2023. <\/p>\n

Discrimination?<\/u><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the policy advisor had reported sick on October 3, 2023. During his sick leave, he spoke several times with his immediate supervisor(s) and with the alderman for Social Affairs, during which the reintegration project was also discussed again. <\/p>\n

On December 18, 2023, another meeting was scheduled between the policy advisor and his immediate supervisor to discuss his reintegration. During the meeting, however, the advisor was asked about the fact that his name had been found on a law firm\u2019s sign. The municipality had decided to launch an integrity investigation because the advisor had failed to report that he was engaged in secondary employment as a (trainee) attorney at this law firm. The municipality\u2019s attorney was also present at the meeting in her capacity as senior HR policy officer. She indicated that the advisor would be immediately suspended should he return to work. <\/p>\n

While the integrity investigation was still ongoing, the consultant was suspended on January 5, 2024, and in February he was informed that the municipality intended to terminate his employment due to a lack of transparency regarding his outside work. The consultant responded in February with a letter in which he stated that his supervisors had taken no action on his reports of suspected misconduct in the reintegration project; in the letter, he again reported suspected misconduct, this time to the municipal secretary. <\/p>\n

Nevertheless, on March 29, 2024, the municipality requested that the small claims court terminate the employment contract with the consultant, and in June 2024, the small claims court granted this request, in part because the consultant should have informed the municipality about his secondary position. The subdistrict court also ruled that the consultant had failed to demonstrate that he had reported misconduct prior to his suspension. At the court of appeals, his dismissal was upheld on the same grounds, whereupon the consultant requested in July 2024 that the House investigate his case. <\/p>\n

The House’s Ruling on the Misconduct<\/u><\/p>\n

The House concludes that, when the agreement for the implementation of the project was concluded, the statutory and internal rules were not followed and that a misconduct occurred. Indeed, the agreement of May 24, 2022, was not based on any written administrative decision or official preparation. Consequently, it is unclear whether the then-alderman for Social Affairs had the authority to sign the agreement on behalf of the Municipal Executive. Furthermore, prior to entering into the agreement, the municipality should have conducted a sound and objective cost estimate. Depending on this, the appropriate procedure for a (European) tender or contract award should have been determined. The municipality asserts that a verbal decision was made to sign the agreement of May 24, but even so, it has not been demonstrated that the preliminary process complied with legal and internal regulations. Since the addendum to the agreement was never signed, it has not actually come into effect. <\/p>\n

The legal and internal rules and procedures were therefore not followed. The House classifies this as a misconduct, because more than just personal interests are at stake and, moreover, the violation is serious. <\/p>\n

The House found insufficient evidence to support the suspicion of a conflict of interest. It could not be determined whether, at the time the agreement was signed on May 24, 2022, the former alderman had made or was making arrangements to work for the foundation in exchange for payment. Nevertheless, this does raise some questions regarding the appearance of a conflict of interest. <\/p>\n

The House’s Ruling on the Disadvantage<\/u><\/p>\n

The House further finds that the municipality treated the whistleblower unfairly after the report was filed. The consultant\u2019s initial reports were filed between September 2022 and October 2023. At that time, he repeatedly voiced his concerns about the project to his supervisors and to the alderman for Social Affairs. The municipality should have interpreted those signals as a report within the meaning of the Whistleblower Protection Act. <\/p>\n

The whistleblower was subsequently suspended and dismissed. The integrity investigation can also be viewed as a form of retaliation. However, these actions were not the result of the consultant\u2019s reports but were related to his other employement, which had not been approved by the municipality. <\/p>\n

However, the House does have reservations about the meeting on December 18, 2023, during which the consultant was taken by surprise by both the topic of discussion \u2014which differed from what had been announced\u2014and by the unannounced presence of the attorney, who was later also involved in the termination of the employment contract.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Court notes that the municipality did not follow the procedures prescribed by law and its internal regulations after the consultant submitted the reports. It views this as a form of discrimination against the consultant following the submission of the reports. <\/p>\n

The House therefore reaches a different conclusion than the court and explains this by stating that it had more information than the court because it heard testimony under oath from the managers and the consultant.<\/p>\n

This raises the question of what the whistleblower can do now to seek justice. Is an appeal still possible? Would that change the outcome of the termination case? The fact remains that the consultant should have reported his other employement activities. Can the employer provide sufficiently convincing evidence that the termination has absolutely nothing to do with the report? According to the EU directive, the employer must demonstrate that the adverse treatment is in no way related to the report. The Whistleblower Protection Act states that a whistleblower may not be disadvantaged during or after the handling of a report, and if they are disadvantaged, it is presumed that the disadvantage is a result of the report. Case law shows that whistleblowers are sometimes still dismissed based on other factors, for example, under the pretext of a disrupted working relationship. <\/p>\n

Interesting and Important Points to Consider<\/u><\/p>\n

The House also highlights a number of points to consider:<\/p>\n