That the ombuds’ position was under pressure became clear last week in a statement (in Dutch) from the trade unions FNV, AOb, and CNV. They wrote that a lack of support and trust from the Executive Board had left the ombuds “paralyzed.” Two days after the unions’ publication, TU/e issued its own statement. The university wrote that it had informed the ombuds in writing at the end of June that her contract—set to expire at the end of November—would not be renewed because of insufficient mutual trust.

According to a TU/e spokesperson, stating that there was too little trust to continue beyond the current contract was the result of “an extensive process.” He emphasizes that “this had to be properly acknowledged.” He speaks of a clearly established mutual lack of trust but does not explain how this conclusion was reached. “Due to confidentiality, we cannot elaborate further,” he added.

Farewell letter

In a farewell letter (in Dutch) posted on the intranet—which ombuds Anna Soedira would have preferred to see published in full in Cursor (see box)—she contests the claim that there was too little mutual trust. She says she never withdrew her trust in the Executive Board, nor did she want to end the cooperation. About the university’s decision not to continue with her, she writes: “Having to call the highest governing bodies to account in several matters has not been without consequences for me as ombuds.”

According to Soedira, the Executive Board had already unilaterally withdrawn its trust in the spring. Despite the unsafe situation this created for her, she decided to continue her work. She explains her early departure as follows: “Under these circumstances—where the ombuds is seen by the Executive Board as untrustworthy and as someone they do not wish to work with—I can no longer serve the TU/e community in a good, safe, and constructive way.”

The unions argued that the Executive Board had long struggled to embrace the ombuds’ criticisms and advice. Soedira confirms this in her farewell letter: “Advice and recommendations from the ombuds were by no means always followed. This applied not only at departmental level by supervisors, but also at the highest governing bodies.” She adds that neither the Executive Board nor the Supervisory Board ever responded to her most recent annual report. The Executive Board disputes this and points to a detailed response posted on the intranet.

Proper handover

As recently as last week, the university had still expected the ombuds to remain in office until her contract expired at the end of November. The Executive Board regrets her decision not to complete her assignment, the spokesperson says. “It is important for the organization to have an ombuds officer for staff in place. Her early departure also jeopardizes a proper handover, which harms the continuity of the ombuds role.” Asking what TU/e is doing to prevent such situations in the future, he replies: “We are already conducting an investigation that should provide a solid foundation for the start of a new staff ombuds. The Executive Board sees the staff ombuds as an indispensable element in safeguarding integrity and social safety at the university, and fully supports the institution of the ombuds officer.”

The university aims to fill the position as soon as possible to safeguard continuity as best as it can. In the meantime, staff in need of assistance can turn to the Integrity and Social Safety Desk, the spokesperson said. Cursor has also submitted questions to the ombuds person, but she has not yet had the opportunity to respond.

Letter

“This farewell letter, addressed to the TU/e community, I naturally would have liked to see published in Cursor, the university newspaper of TU/e, but unfortunately this was refused,” Soedira wrote in her letter. She wanted to submit the letter to Cursor on the condition that it would be published in full and without edits on the website. The editorial board could not agree to this in advance, in part to avoid setting a precedent. However, the editors did offer several other ways to highlight both her situation and her letter, while still providing room for journalistic context.