With the appointment of Van Luyken, TU/e once again has an ombudsman (intranet). The university was temporarily without one after Anna Soedira stepped down from her position in October. She said she resigned because the university had lost confidence in her. The Executive Board stated it was a matter of mutual loss of trust.

According to Van Luyken, the role of ombudsman stands or falls with trust. He should know, he was the first ombudsman at TU Delft and is currently interim ombudsman at Radboud University, where his predecessor also left the post prematurely. In Nijmegen trust has, according to him, since been restored.

Van Luyken officially started his position at TU/e on October 17. The University Council’s confidential committee was involved in his appointment.

How do you see your role as ombudsman within the university?

“I’m here to help resolve issues that staff members experience, from an independent, impartial, and confidential position. My first aim is always to help the organization solve the problem itself. If that doesn’t work, I’ll look into why that is. When I see recurring issues, I can advise adjustments to procedures, for example. I include such recommendations in the annual report. My advice is non-binding, also in individual cases. And I’m not an advocate for anyone’s personal interests.”

There’s currently an external investigation going on, into the various roles related to social safety within the university, particularly that of the ombudsman. What is your take on that?

“In my opinion, the ombuds regulations are very clear. However, the implementation differs slightly from one university to another. About four years ago, it was agreed in the collective labor agreement that all Dutch universities must appoint an ombuds officer, but each institution was free to shape that role in its own way. I think that, from the start, that implementation wasn’t properly aligned at some universities, which is why you now see differences in how the role is interpreted and carried out.”

Are you involved in the investigation into how those roles are defined?

“Not actively, but I’ve only just started. I’d be happy to share my experiences for the investigation, but I don’t want to be directly involved in it, perhaps only in reviewing the results. Otherwise, I’d end up evaluating my own work.”

Why do you think there’s discussion about it?

“I think everyone is still getting used to the role of the ombudsman. It takes some time to understand how to work with each other. You also have to deal with expectations. An ombuds officer is not a personal advocate. When people expect me to be one, that can lead to confusion.”

“This function depends entirely on mutual trust within the organization — at all levels: staff, supervisors, the Executive Board, and the Supervisory Board. If that trust is lacking anywhere, it becomes very difficult to do your job properly.”

How do you make sure that trust is there?

“You build it by giving and taking. Maybe I'm a simple guy, but I am quite open when it comes to trust. I assume that if I share something in confidence, it will be treated with care. I am here to solve problems and I will do whatever is needed to achieve that. That sometimes means confiding something to others without revealing the contents of confidential conversations.”

In the past, there’s been disagreement between the ombuds officer and the Executive Board about which ombuds communications can be shared externally. How do you view the sharing of ombuds communications in general?

“As I said, my role as ombudsman depends entirely on trust. If someone wishes to break confidentiality, I hope they will discuss it with me first. Confidentiality is absolutely essential to this role—people need to know that nothing they tell me will be shared without their knowledge. I consider confidentiality sacred. So if someone wants to share part of that communication, I want to be informed. Then I can indicate what can and cannot be disclosed.”

The university community’s trust may also have been affected by what happened with the previous ombuds officer. How do you think that trust can be restored?

“I don’t yet have a clear sense of how big the issue is, or what role I can or should play in rebuilding that trust. You can’t force trust. In fact, I’d rather the Executive Board didn’t publicly say it trusts me, because then others might think: “Forget it—whoever pays, decides.” But that’s not how it works. I am truly independent. Just give me the space and opportunity to show that this role can work.”

You are also interim ombudsman at Radboud University, where, as in Eindhoven, your predecessor stepped down early. Did that situation influence your start in Nijmegen?

“Not really. But I did notice there was a lot of suspicion at first. I was warned when I wanted to talk to certain parties. Most concerns were based on a fear of losing control—the feeling that suddenly an independent third party “is getting involved.””

How did you manage to reduce that suspicion?

“They quickly saw what kind of person I am. I don’t beat around the bush. A lot had happened there — including around student demonstrations — so there were many conversations. They saw that I’m a reliable and open person. I’m clear about what I do and don’t do, and I use my independent position to help people and raise issues when necessary.”

So there’s no longer any distrust there?

“No, at least I don’t feel any. The initial suspicion wasn’t directed at me personally, but at the role itself.”

Now that you’ve started at TU/e, how did the handover go?

“There are six ongoing cases, but I didn’t receive them directly. That’s partly for privacy reasons, you can’t simply transfer all information to a new ombudsman without consent. The previous ombuds officer has said that once the individuals involved contact me, she will transfer the background information with their permission. I won’t reach out to them myself.”

“I am already handling three other cases, from people who approached me directly. Anyone who needs me can always call, I’m generally very easy to reach.”

You’ve been appointed for six months. What do you hope to achieve in that time?

“I hope to have created a clearer picture of what the ombudsman’s role should look like within the university. Although, I don’t think we’ll be fully there in six months. By then, a new ombuds officer probably won’t have been appointed yet. The Integrity and Social Safety Desk still needs further development, and we’ll need to see how everyone involved works together. The university will also need to evaluate the ombuds position itself. That takes more time. I’d actually be surprised if I weren’t still here around this time next year.”

Would you be open to staying longer?

“Why not? But it has to be the right fit. You need a certain level of mutual trust—without that, it simply doesn’t work.”

This article was translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by an editor