A year ago, former ombudsperson Soedira left the university prematurely, after the Executive Board informed her that it did not intend to renew her contract. According to the board, this was based on a lack of trust (intranet) on both sides. For privacy reasons, the Executive Board has never disclosed what the lack of trust was based on.

In a farewell letter (intranet), Soedira stated that the Executive Board had unilaterally withdrawn its trust in her and had not provided sufficient grounds for doing so.

Restoring her reputation

Before the summer, Soedira contacted the Executive Board again, asking for restoration of her reputation, rectification and compensation. A ruling by the court of appeals in a dismissal case prompted her to do so, because, in her view, the court supported important aspects of her earlier warnings about social safety and the advice she had provided on the issue.

In her correspondence with the Executive Board, she included, among others, the University Council (UR) and the unions, and in a subsequent letter she addressed them directly. The University Council then decided to publish a public response in the form of a statement, says UR member Hjalmar Mulders.

Public response

“The former Ombuds approached the University Council directly with legitimate questions about an issue that concerns the independent Ombuds function as an institution,” he explains. “Because the question concerns the institutional position of the Ombuds function and, by extension, the university community as a whole, the council felt it was appropriate to make its response public.”

In its statement, the UR says that in its ruling, the court explicitly attached significance to Soedira’s reporting and advice. According to the UR, public recognition is appropriate because Soedira acted within her independent role as an ombudsperson when reporting concerns and providing advice.

The UR also believes that, “insofar as her raising concerns and providing advice played a role in subsequent assessments of her performance or position,” Soedira is entitled to have her standing restored in that regard. 

Mulders: “Without first acknowledging what follows from new facts or a court ruling, you cannot credibly move toward restoration, learning and implementation.”

Unions

On Thursday, the unions also published their own statement (intranet). The unions had first wanted to wait for a meeting with the Executive Board, says representative Jan Vleeshouwers, because of what had happened in the past. 

“When the Executive Board wanted to terminate Soedira’s contract, the board was surprised by our statement (intranet) about it. We agreed at the time to address these matters through dialogue, so that is what we are doing now.”

The unions consider restoring her reputation, rectification or compensation appropriate, but also recognize the complications involved, Vleeshouwers says. In their statement, the unions call for a meeting between Soedira and the Executive Board.

Executive Board stands by the process

According to the Executive Board, the court of appeals’ ruling does not concern the role of the ombudsperson. The Executive Board does not wish to comment, for privacy reasons, on whether her actions in the case played a role in the assessment of her performance or position. The same applies to the emails sent to and from the ombudsperson concerning the restoration of her reputation. 

“Correspondence between the Ombuds and the Executive Board, like correspondence with other current or former employees, is not intended for public disclosure,” says spokesperson Ivo Jongsma.

According to Jongsma, the Executive Board still stands by the process followed at the time. At the same time, he says, the board regrets that it was unable to restore the former ombudsperson’s trust in the Executive Board.

Asked whether the University Council’s statement affects the Executive Board’s view of the situation, Jongsma says the letter will be considered as part of a confidential process with the University Council that is already underway.

Clarity of roles

He is referring to the process surrounding an investigation led by Verinorm. According to Jongsma, the investigation was initiated to “learn further lessons from the role played by each body in cases like these.”

The Executive Board wanted the investigation to take a broader look at clarity of roles, Executive Board President Koen Janssen said in an earlier interview with Cursor. The investigation was also intended to clarify how confidential ombudsperson correspondence, submitted without Soedira’s permission, had been introduced into several cases, including the dismissal case in question.

Reflection

As part of the investigation process, each of the parties is preparing a reflection on their actions in the case, including “lessons learned,” Jongsma says. However, in her letter, the former ombudsperson says she sees no added value in an “oral exchange on ‘lessons learned’” together with representatives of the UR and the unions. According to Jongsma, Soedira was interviewed by Verinorm as part of the investigation.

Jongsma says the parties will develop a jointly supported plan for improving the implementation of the ombudsperson’s role and the procedures surrounding it. “The ultimate goal, of course, is to reach a situation with stronger safeguards for social safety for our employees. The Executive Board considers the Ombuds for Staff role indispensable to this, as are the other components of TU/e’s social safety network.”

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