At the Human Rights Institute (CRM), there is a “situation of ongoing conflict that has lasted for years,” a lack of “inclusive leadership,” “little collegiality,” and a “pattern of systematic neglect and exclusion.”

This is the opinion of the committee that investigated possible abuses at the college on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and Security. Therefore, the organizational structure of the institute must be addressed, is the advice.

The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights adjudicates disputes that may involve discrimination. “Inclusive leadership is particularly important for an institute like CRM; after all, the institute does an exemplary job on diversity and inclusion,” he said. biography From the report.

Last year, research by NOS and Nieuwsuur showed that there was a crisis at the top of the organisation. Four board members reported intimidation, discrimination and favouritism by President Jacobin Gill. They therefore reported possible “social abuse”.

According to the committee, chaired by former minister Winnie Sørgdrager, there is no social abuse as defined in the Whistleblower Act. For this reason, the “public interest” has not been sufficiently affected and no “pattern” of misconduct has been identified.

According to the researchers, the atmosphere within the Fellowship was already bad before Gil arrived. “The atmosphere was clearly unpleasant, tense and unconstructive, at least for office workers.” Yellow was ill-prepared for this and inherited a “conflicted organization.” The committee finds that “the board as a group has failed, past and present.”

Gil is said to have acted “insufficiently competently” as president in recent years. So the four reporters are right on a number of points. Gil is guilty of a “pattern of systematic neglect and exclusion” and partly of “power tactics” and “psychological insecurity.”

She showed “little sensitivity, empathy and understanding toward two reporters, and failed to publicly address implicit biases and correct the board members’ microaggressive behavior.”

The committee finds that there is no “pattern of discrimination”, loss of authority and “imposition of loyalty”.

Two journalists had previously informed the Ministry of Justice and Security, but Minister Werwind subsequently said he could not intervene. The committee says this is not true. “The committee considers that the Ministry of Justice and Security could have intervened in response to the signals previously received.”

The board’s advisory board has also been criticised. Two board members were told they were ineligible for reappointment after the report was submitted. According to the advisory board, which advises on reappointments, there was no connection.

However, the investigation committee is not convinced of this, and has the impression that “the report had an impact on the matter.” I’m waiting Whistleblowers are protected by law in the Netherlands and may not suffer any harm as a result of their reports.

The committee’s comment also concerns the National Ombudsman, who is a member of the Advisory Board and had a significant voice in blocking the reappointment process. According to the researchers, the Advisory Board’s actions “did not have the clarity, care and sensitivity” that might be expected.

The Committee now recommends making substantial changes to a number of parts of the organisation, which may require amending the Act. For example, the advice is to further separate the different functions of the Board members, establish an Executive Board, abolish the special position of National Ombudsman on the Advisory Board and consider oversight of the Board.