On Thursday, 2 October debated Rotterdam city council on the issue of the Photo Museum. The cause was the affair that started - in the public eye - with an article in De Volkskrant, which made it clear that a (number of) long-serving employee(s) did not get along with director Birgit Donker. Quite soon after the publication, the museum's Supervisory Board intervened, suspending the director and denying him access to the building with immediate effect, something that is common in cases of serious fraud or serious misconduct.
The Supervisory Board has always remained silent about the reasons for this highly controversial move. Last week, there was suddenly a comprehensive letter and an answer to 'Frequently Asked Questions', which the SC had apparently initially sent only to a few municipal councillors, but is now public.
The piece contains many words, but gives no further information about those backgrounds. Indeed, the SB only explains that they would have liked to keep everything indoors.
Crucial information
On the reasons for dismissal, the Council said:
"We recognise and have publicly expressed the former director-director's positive contributions to the museum. Nevertheless, her actions created an irreparable breach of trust. In particular, the Supervisory Board blames her for withholding and influencing crucial information on the social safety and mental health of staff. Merit should never come at the expense (sic) of the well-being of employees, all of whom make an essential contribution to the success of the museum in their own fields."
It raises questions about what exactly this "crucial information on social safety and employee mental health" might entail? Murders in the workplace? Drawing pins on the toilet seat? Host During meetings? Salt in the coffee? All known ways to get rid of staff, but in the subsequent coverage, in which the Volkskrant again consulted the same staff member who had complained earlier, none of this appeared.
Shaky foundation
In particular, the NRC report revealed that in a fit of panic, the SB put far too severe a sanction on a possible difference of opinion on what should and should not be shared. Something quite common in the sector, and which could be addressed with proper conversation and monitoring.
The SB seems aware of the rather shaky basis of their actions, so an 'independent' external investigation has been launched, the outcome of which cannot be expected until November. And there's an interesting catch there, when we read:
"To be clear: the external investigation is neither a follow-up to the internal investigation of the SB nor a verification of it. Where the internal investigation had as its question whether the SB was incorrectly and/or incompletely informed, the external party is now investigating a different question: social welfare and culture within the organisation."
Familiar pattern
This wording looks a little familiar to us. In the handling of a report of serious sexually transgressive behaviour at an Amsterdam theatre company, an independent external investigation was also chosen, but crucial questions were not put to crucial individuals, as that would not necessarily be part of the formal remit. The Amsterdam municipality also played a notable role in this: Raped? According to the protocols, no..
That the external investigation may not interfere with the actions of the SB also imposes a major failure of the current regulations surrounding governance and supervision: a Supervisory Board is unassailable. Its decisions are irreversible, a resignation is final, liability absent.
In doing so, the cultural sector has rigged up a Trumpian Trojan Horse that effectively outlaws any cultural institution with a director-director. They can be thrown out on the street at any time without the right of appeal by a Supervisory Board that is not accountable for it.
No shrinkage
This aspect also emerged in Rotterdam City Council's debate with culture alderman Said Kasmi. This alderman, under whose regime the city earlier lost the Rotterdam Arts and Culture Council on the basis of a bad investigation, and who then dismissed the diligent work of a quartermaster with a single letter, again did his best to justify his non-performance.
The City Council, particularly concerned about the fact that the Photo Museum has postponed the opening by at least six months, hammered unrelentingly on the passive attitude of the alderman, who, however, did not budge on this occasion. Until the moment the livestream gave up on it at the city hall, he remained for a while unfazed as ever.
Who wants?
How will it proceed? The Supervisory Board will start looking for a new director, while it is still unacceptable that one of its own members now holds that position ad interim. The opening will be done by the new director. Is the intention.
The question is, who on earth wants that job, with such a Supervisory Board, and such an alderman. Cultural-administrative amateurism could yet cost the Netherlands' second city dearly.
Nederlands 
English (UK) 
Français 