Supervisory Board refused to share draft report on social safety during reappointment process of Rector Magnificus

The Supervisory Board saw ‘no indications against Tim personally that would impede a reappointment’ in the report, was the Chair’s response to Delta. On 6 February 2024 TU Delft’s Supervisory Board appointed Van der Hagen as Rector Magnificus and Chair of the Executive Board. This third term would take effect on 1 May.

Prior to the reappointment process, the Supervisory Board involved the Works Council and the Student Council, as is required under TU Delft’s Executive and Management Regulations (in Dutch). In November, December and January the representation bodies discussed the decision to reappoint Van der Hagen with the Supervisory Board several times.

On 11 January there was a confidential interview for the position. The Supervisory Board shared its intention for the reappointment officially with the representation bodies, after which the Works Council and Student Council members could question Van der Hagen. Among the questions were questions about social safety. The Inspectorate report which showed that this is not in order and that there is mismanagement was not part of the reappointment process.

But it was shared with external parties

During the procedure, both the Works Council and the Student Council members repeatedly requested the Supervisory Board to see the report. The draft version was sent to TU Delft on 17 November, after which it also ended up on the desk of the Supervisory Board. As appears in a statement that the Supervisory Board compiled with the Works Council and Student Council in response to Delta’s questions, it then chose not to share the draft report. The statement says that at the time of the request the draft report ‘was not shared anywhere in TU Delft, not even confidentially’. “The decision was taken to be consistent.”

But during the last phase of the reappointment process, some external parties did see parts of the report. In drafting the response that the Executive Board sent to the Inspectorate of Education one day after the job interview, the help of Confidant Partners, a communications agency, was called in and they had read either the full report or parts of it.

The Executive Board and the Supervisory Board knew that the report contained shocking information that would probably have major consequences.

Stepping down

In line with Confidant Partners’ advice, in its response to the Inspectorate the Executive Board wrote that ‘the consequence of publishing a chapter as this one can only be that the relevant administrators and supervisors defy it in public or that they step down (voluntarily or forcibly), as they are unable to defend themselves’. In other words, the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board knew that the report contained shocking information that would probably have major consequences.

The Supervisory Board says that at the time it had assumed that the Inspectorate report’s would be modified. That plus the intention ‘to be consistent’ were the reasons that the Supervisory Board did not share the report when requested to do so.

In a following response to Delta’s questions, this time independent of the Works Council and the Student Council, the Chair of the Supervisory Board said that the Supervisory Board had initially expected the Inspectorate of Education’s report to be issued well before the reappointment. Only when it transpired that the date of issue and the reappointment date were close together did the Supervisory Board ‘understandably want to ascertain that there were no personal accusations against Tim van der Hagen in the report’. The Supervisory Board says that there are indeed none. Thus, ‘for the Supervisory Board, nothing stood in the way of Tim’s reappointment’.

Handled differently

The Supervisory Board, Works Council and Student Council close their joint statement by saying that they would now have handled the reappointment process differently. ‘The Supervisory Board states that with hindsight they would have acted differently and would have shared the draft report. All the bodies agree that this would have helped make the process more clear and transparent. This especially as social safety is a priority for everyone. The Supervisory Board and the representation bodies will take the lessons learnt in the next appointment or reappointment process.’

In response to Delta (independent of the Works Council and Student Council), the Supervisory Board emphasises that the procedure was handled ‘carefully’. The process ‘started about one year prior to the reappointment date’, which is not only mandatory, but ‘above all necessary to be able to go through the process carefully and safeguard administrative continuity’. The Supervisory Board says that it had 22 meetings with deans, Pro Vice Rectors, directors, chairs of the representation bodies, and other Executive Board members. ‘Continuity in administering’ was ‘in this particular case […] exceptionally important’ says the Supervisory Board.

In response to Delta’s question on whether a different approach would have changed the outcome of the reappointment process, the Chair of the Supervisory Board says that it would not have. “To the Supervisory Board, Tim has performed excellently in this position. TU Delft has made much progress under his leadership both in terms of results and of culture […] There is much and unanimous support from the colleagues who work closely with Tim. Tim has demonstrated that he can manage major changes at TU Delft and we are confident that he will continue to do so in the future, including regarding social safety. Naturally the Supervisory Board will continue to monitor the situation.”

Did not wait

This time Van der Hagen was reappointed earlier in the year than in 2020. In 2020 this was done on 27 March, in 2024 on 6 February, a while before the Inspectorate of Education’s report was made public on 1 March. In both 2020 and in 2024 his period of service will take effect on 1 May.

The Supervisory Board says that it did not wait with the reappointment until the report would be made public because it was not known at the time when the final version would be issued. An Inspectorate of Education spokesperson told Delta at the end of January that the report would probably be published in March. As an argument, the Supervisory Board says that ‘clarity’ was ‘important’ for both TU Delft and Van der Hagen.

With the collaboration of Kim Bakker