Results research
On 22 May 2023, the Executive Board took note of the report following the investigation conducted by Hoffmann within the AKI. This investigation was instructed by the Executive Board, in consultation with the Board of Governors of ArtEZ University of the Arts, following two lawsuits, in a period around 2019, with AKI ArtEZ as one of the parties. As ArtEZ wants to be a learning organisation, the Executive Board, in consultation with the Board of Governors, asked the Hoffmann agency to conduct an investigation, in addition to the statements.
The investigation focused, on the one hand, on whether ArtEZ members of staff took the proper steps, whether these were proportionate and whether sufficient care was taken. In addition, the investigators examined whether there could be underlying issues at the AKI that allowed things to escalate so much in the past.
A supervisory committee was appointed to ensure that the process was conducted carefully and to guarantee a critical, independent view. The investigation took longer than estimated beforehand, partly because the investigators indicated during the process that they wished to speak with additional individuals for a more complete picture.
The report makes observations but offers few recommendations. The Executive Board believes it is important to translate these observations into reflection, conclusions and appropriate follow-up and/or actions and to share that transparently. Hence, we took some time to make this translation carefully.
First of all, it is important to emphasise that the Executive Board regrets that there are (former) employees and (former) students who suffer or have suffered from their time at AKI ArtEZ. This is not the intention and where appropriate we will talk with them, if we have not already done so. We realise that more is needed than this conversation; at the end of this response, we will go into that in more detail.
We are going to use this investigation and its results to learn from. So, as the Executive Board, we take the report's findings to heart and take a critical look at the processes, division of roles, communication and culture within ArtEZ as a whole and AKI ArtEZ in particular. Finally, neither the Executive Board nor the Board of Governors found any reason in the report to take personal, employment-related measures with respect to various ArtEZ members of staff, including those of the Executive Board itself.
Investigation question 1 – observations by Hoffmann
The investigators state in the report that "The interviews conducted and perusal of the relevant documents warrant the statement that the members of staff formally followed/took the proper steps, decisions, actions and acts on behalf of AKI and ArtEZ.” Furthermore, “(..) it can be said that these steps, decisions, actions and acts took place in accordance with the applicable procedures.”
However, they are also critical, arguing that the Central Board of Examiners acted somewhat rashly and that ArtEZ as a whole did not act sufficiently carefully or proportionally.
Reflection
The Executive Board and the Central Board of Examiners have discussed these outcomes. Both the Executive Board and the Central Board of Examiners respect and regret these observations. In accordance with the decision of the committee of appeal, in February 2021 the examiner's suspension was already lifted at that time.
Furthermore, the committee ruled similarly in the lawsuit filed by the student in the spring of 2022, and ArtEZ was ordered to pay damages, which have since been paid.
Actions, already initiated
There are several aspects to this situation: it touches on things such as the position and responsibility of the examiner in higher education. Appointing examiners is a statutory responsibility of the Board of Examiners.
The Executive Board and Central Board of Examiners would like to emphasise that it is essential for the role of examiner that there is no possible appearance of bias or conflict of interest.
It is important to note that the practice of that time no longer reflects that of 2023. For several years, the Executive Board has worked with the Central Board of Examiners to further develop the Board of Examiners. For example, developments regarding the Board of Examiners have been implemented such as the further development of the job profiles, task and role descriptions (also of examiners), terms of office, conditions for possible reappointment and a schedule of appointments and resignations.
Regarding the appearance of conflicts of interest, we regard that according to the regulations and practice in place at the time; examiners were designated by the supervisor. The Hoffmann report found that it was plausible – given then current practice – that reporting the possible involvement of an assessor or examiner to the supervisor could appear to be sufficient to eliminate this appearance. In this, the report upholds the committee of appeal’s judgment. Meanwhile, within ArtEZ, the statutory duty of the Board of Examiners is being implemented to the effect that only the Central Board of Examiners can appoint examiners.
Additional actions
Reflecting on the observations of the report, the Executive Board and Board of Examiners will add three additional development points to those already underway.
First of all, the Executive Board and the Central Board of Examiners think it is important that in any new, similar situations both attention is paid to due diligence and that the intent of the regulations is safeguarded. This should prevent any rash or careless action in future cases. This will be detailed before the start of the new academic year in a guideline that we will communicate to stakeholders.
We will make sure from now on that examiners are always clearly informed by means of a designation letter what their tasks, roles and obligations are. This will explicitly address the importance of this impartiality and the obligation to step down of one's own accord in cases where the appearance of bias or conflict of interest may be involved. The clear establishment of frameworks and role descriptions in the future should ensure that potential ambiguities and the appearance of bias are avoided.
In addition, ArtEZ is already working on an option for examiners who do not agree with a decision of the Board of Examiners towards them to submit it to an independent body within ArtEZ. Until now, they could only object to the Board of Examiners and then go to court, as stated in the law. How the Central Board of Examiners and examiners relate to each other when there is a dispute over an examiner's actions is a question that several higher education institutions are tackling. The Executive Board will bring this to the attention of the ministry through the existing forums of the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (VH) and the Education Inspectorate, as this is an ambiguity in the national regulations.
Pending this national clarity, the Executive Board is looking for a way of working that can serve as a bridge within ArtEZ. After all, the current situation is highly undesirable. The Executive Board sought advice on this from an education lawyer, who described some alternatives. We are now weighing which is most effective; this proposal will also be discussed with some education representatives.
Investigation question 2 – observations by Hoffmann
The investigators state in the report that underlying issues have been identified in the AKI's past that allowed things to escalate. It was clear from the interviews that people felt there was a great deal of discontent and unrest during the 2018-2022 period. For example, the AKI did not have an accountability culture and people did not communicate with each other, but about each other. The various changes at directors' and MT level have negatively affected the atmosphere. Role ambiguity, dual (interim) positions and marital relations between staff have not contributed to a pleasant work environment.
there is no self-reflection and there is a tendency towards overestimation. Employees shy away from confrontations, leaving unexpressed annoyances and disappointments under the surface, being bottled up and bluntly expressed at some other time.”
Reflection
The report's findings on this investigation question do not come unexpected to the Executive Board. The investigation was initiated partly because of the lawsuits, but certainly also because of the turmoil within the AKI and the publications in the Tubantia newspaper. The culture described is explicitly not the culture ArtEZ wants to stand for. It is important for the Executive Board to address this to prevent any recurrence in the future. However, changing a culture is no easy task. That means this will require something from everyone within AKI ArtEZ, not only from the Executive Board.
By extension, it is important to work with each other on role clarity. Who exactly is from where? As Executive Board, we looked back on the decisions we made or ratified by appointing interim managers or having tasks and positions replaced by employees who also continued to perform their own roles. Because of these dual roles, we put them as well as other employees in an awkward, unclear and undesirable situation, in part by having them take on multiple leadership roles simultaneously. This did not make for a satisfactory performance and also affected the rest of the organisation. We deeply regret this and it will be an important lesson and concern for us in future situations and hence will not be repeated. We will discuss this with the affected (former) employees.
Improving information and transparency from both sides is necessary for a healthy culture. That works both ways: provision of information from the Executive Board and directors to the rest of the organisation, and also picking up signals from the AKI ArtEZ organisation by directors and the Executive Board. Although there are several tools through which signals can be reported, this proves not to have been adequate. The idea is that signals are heard and taken seriously and that appropriate action is taken. The Executive Board is sorry that this has not been experienced and has not worked as such. We will critically evaluate our own actions and processes to do this better in the future. The clear frameworks, as outlined above, are also going to help in establishing who is involved, when, in what.
Actions, already initiated
The Executive Board had already taken steps to bring about culture change in recent years, prior to this investigation, including the appointment of the new director, who started as of September 2022; she was given this assignment. She works with the MT and staff of the AKI to create an environment that is safe enough for them to experience a culture of accountability. For example, by implementing new manners, transparent consultations, role clarity, clear agreements and stricter management. She is assisted in this by internal and external experts.
The improvement in providing information to staff and students in the academy has already been taken up by both the interim director and new director. The AKI days are a case in point, where necessary or desirable with the involvement of Executive Board as well. We continue to monitor the development of the culture with the new director.
Additional actions
There is great difference of opinion about the frameworks, from which the Executive Board draws lessons for all of ArtEZ. We will engage with directors to clarify (existing) frameworks, with an eye for their impact in practice. We will be sure to pay attention to the ArtEZ-wide rules of conduct, frameworks related to relationships (family, love) at work, and adapt them where necessary. Clear frameworks, such as tasks, roles and job descriptions, are also needed to work with each other to create that culture of accountability.
Regarding culture and social safety throughout ArtEZ, an independent agency conducted a survey of all ArtEZ units between 2021 and 2023. For each academy, areas of concern and improvement emerge from this survey as starting points for improvement.
This survey was also conducted at the AKI. Soon, the complete survey on all of ArtEZ will be completed. The outcomes provide more insight and also guidance for following up on actions within the academies and units and building a safe learning and working environment at ArtEZ. With all directors, we continue to have regular conversations in the regular discussion cycle in order to better capture signals regarding culture and social safety structurally.
What next
It is clear to us that given this report and our response to it, many steps have yet to be taken towards a safe learning and working environment for students and staff. We must make a concerted effort and we all have our work cut out for us. In addition to the above actions such as clarifying and enforcing the frameworks of behaviour, a process is also needed to see what is necessary for those involved to be able to work with each other again within ArtEZ. A lot has happened back and forth that has had a great impact, which merits attention; that has not been resolved with the release of the report. To this end, we will set up a process under the supervision of an external expert. This has been scheduled for after the summer holiday.