Open letter to Councillor Joan Nunnely

• Copy: Registry, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, those involved in the running of the Nederlands Fotomuseum
• Subject: Dutch Museum of Photography, council debate on 16 July 2026
• 17 July 2026

Dear Ms Nunnely,

On taking up your post as Councillor for Culture, you are inheriting a situation that now extends far beyond a labour dispute at the Nederlands Fotomuseum. The court’s ruling has laid bare a fundamental governance issue: how does a cultural institution restore trust when it is precisely its oversight and governance that have come under criticism?

In recent official consultations involving the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the municipality asked the current Supervisory Board of the photography museum to draw up a recovery plan for (the senior management and) the governance of the photography museum.

Your predecessor’s responses to the council questions thus marked a significant turning point. For the first time, it was explicitly acknowledged that not only do the consequences of the conflict require attention, but that reflection is also needed on the way in which the museum’s management and oversight have functioned. That is an important step. At the same time, that same letter shows that, on the very most fundamental points, no convincing answers have yet been provided.

The most pressing question concerns the current position of interim director Van der Lee. He was a member of the Supervisory Board during the period on which the court has passed an exceptionally critical judgement. He is now responsible for the day-to-day management of the same organisation and, consequently, for drawing up the requested recovery plan.

Without making any judgement whatsoever about his personal integrity, it can be concluded that this arrangement is extremely vulnerable from an administrative point of view. After all, good governance requires not only independence, but also the avoidance of any appearance of a conflict of interest. Precisely when the actions of a supervisory body are the subject of public and legally resolved debate, it is difficult to imagine that one of the supervisory members involved could subsequently take charge of and lead the recovery process whilst simultaneously representing the organisation in dealings with the government, investigators and the public. This is not a matter of personal qualifications. It is a question of governance.

A recovery process can only be credible if it is visibly independent. Not only for the museum’s staff, not only for the former director, but also for funding bodies, fellow institutions and the wider cultural sector, which is following with interest to see what lessons are being learnt from this exceptional case.

This brings us to a second issue that is at least as important. The question raised by the local authority and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science is not solely relevant to the Nederlands Fotomuseum. This case goes to the very heart of oversight within the cultural sector. How does a Supervisory Board function when its oversight is flawed and goes off the rails? What warning signs were missed? Which responsibilities were or were not fulfilled? How can we prevent a conflict from escalating to the point where a court has to rule that there has been seriously culpable conduct on the part of the Supervisory Board or the employer?

That is precisely why the investigation should be independent, and also made public. The cultural sector has little to gain from a recovery process that is largely shaped by those whose actions are, in fact, the subject of scrutiny, and where conclusions are shared only within a limited circle. The value of this case lies precisely in the lessons that can be learnt from it. Not merely to hold individuals to account, but to prevent similar situations from recurring elsewhere. Good governance is fostered by transparency, not by secrecy.

It is therefore difficult to understand why a recovery process overseen by the very same organisation whose administrative functioning is the subject of the investigation is deemed sufficient. A truly independent investigation, carried out by a reputable external body and published in full, would do much greater justice to the social significance of this case. It is not only Rotterdam that has an interest in this; the entire cultural sector does.

We therefore hope that you will not approach this matter as a case to be closed, but as an opportunity to genuinely strengthen confidence in good governance within the arts sector.

In our view, this calls for three clear choices.

• Firstly: ensure that the recovery process can take place entirely independently, without the current governance structure continuing to give rise to questions about potential conflicts of interest.
• Secondly: commission an independent investigation into the functioning of the management and supervisory bodies during the period in question, to be carried out by a party with no involvement in the case.
• Thirdly: publish the findings in full, so that not only the Nederlands Fotomuseum but the entire cultural sector can learn from them.

The court has now delivered its verdict on the past. The question that now arises is how Rotterdam will demonstrate that good governance is not merely professed when everything is going well, but precisely when it has been under pressure. It is precisely for this reason that this case deserves the utmost independence, transparency and openness.

Yours faithfully,

Also on behalf of those concerned, who continue to follow developments at the Nederlands Fotomuseum with great interest.

Sjarel Ex
Guido van Nispen
Dieter de Vroomen

Appreciate this article!