Deposed directors raise money for lawsuit against Arts Union

Reports appeared online this week that two Arts Union board members had allegedly been ousted ("fired", according to their own message). As the reason, Ben van den Dungen, one of the disgraced directors gives an 'unexpected deficit' in the financial statements: "The Kunstenbond - and with it the advocacy of musicians - is in a deep crisis, after it was revealed that the management greatly exceeded the budget without the explicit approval of the board and members' council. Instead of the budgeted operating deficit (sic) of €600,000, the association posted an operating deficit of over €1.1 million. Members' money."

According to Van den Dungen, he, along with Ellister van der Molen, was appointed by the members' council 'dismissed' because they "asked questions" over the budget overrun. The members' council voted on their 'dismissal' in their absence, according to the complainants.

Unsanitary

Van den Dungen and Van der Molen are challenging their impeachment and are a crowdfunding launched. They want to raise 5,500 euros from interested parties to file a brief against the Arts Union.

So time to check with the Arts Union to find out what they think is going on. Manu van Kersbergen, who has been president of the Kunstenbond since January this year, denies that there is a crisis. According to Manu, the removal of the two former board members is the result of "a democratic process" that "according to all the by-laws and statutes for the Arts Union has passed." The Council of Members, the highest decision-making body within the association (consisting of 13 members), decided by a majority that "these two board members really cannot continue on this footing for much longer."

According to the chairman, the ex-governors' claim that their waiver stemmed from critical questions about budget overruns is factually incorrect: "The crux of the problem was that joint decision-making in a collegial board was no longer possible. This disturbed relationship had been going on for some time and had been discussed several times. It came to the fore again at the time when the two former board members did not want to take their managerial responsibility and were acting administratively unhygienically by deliberately not signing a draft annual account."

No critical questions

Such a draft financial statement is prepared by the chief financial officer and the auditor and then submitted to the board, which formally prepares the financial statements. The role of the board in that signing is, according to Van Kersbergen "checking the accuracy of the information recorded in it", not questioning interim disclosures already discussed by that same board.

The chairman called incorrect the former board members' claim that they had not been informed about financial developments. During regular board meetings throughout 2024, he said, quarterly reports had already been presented, received and discussed by the full board, including Van den Dungen and Van der Molen. Even at the last 2024 meeting in which those figures became clear, in autumn 2024, the now deposed board members did not ask critical questions. This is also evident from minutes and recordings of those meetings.

Management thrown in front of bus

After that, something apparently went wrong, according to Van Kersbergen: "When I proposed a new meeting, they became unresponsive, cancelled meetings and opened a route and line of communication with the Council of Members on their own initiative."

That Van den Dungen and Van der Molen sought contact with the members' council outside the board itself goes against the governance code, according to the chairman. The former board members expressed their distrust of the director in front of the entire members' council. According to Van Kersbergen, they thereby threw the board in front of the bus. "This behaviour made the situation unsafe for the rest of the board, especially the new treasurer, who experienced the period as very unsafe. The misinformation and far-reaching recriminations caused an escalation."

This contradicts the former board members' claim that it was precisely they who felt unsafe.

No money from members

Remains: the question of whether that said budget overrun to "Members' money" goes. According to the Arts Union, these are investments for the sake of a financially sustainable future: "In November 2022, a strategy plan was unanimously approved by both the board and the Council of Members, including the relevant former board members. The plan opted for an investment route rather than austerity. It could be funded from large financial reserves, derived from an investment portfolio, not contributions. This plan explicitly recognised that it would lead to a larger operating deficit in the early years, with a neutral or positive budget after 2026. The 2024 deficit is therefore not an unexpected setback, but an anticipated and logical consequence of that joint choice."

That the board members were not present at the meeting where the members' council decided on their removal is also not a deliberate action, according to Van Kersbergen: "After the presentation of the draft annual accounts on 13 May 2025, at which their sudden opposition revealed itself, we scheduled two meetings for discussion and mediation. They chose not to appear there and by then had already opened their unilateral line with the members' council. Thereupon, the members' council itself tabled the motion, scheduled a meeting and voted on it." With the familiar result.

At the time of writing this article, over 4900 of the requested 5500 euros for the summary proceedings had been raised.