OPINION· APRIL 21, 2021 ·

17 MIN

INTERVIEW WITH SANDRA PALMMEN

https://www.allepodcasts.nl/politiek/stuurloos

Sandra Palmen is a strategic advisor and specializes in the rule of law, government actions with a focus on the various forms of legal protection. Sandra has over 25 years of experience as a specialist in formal administrative law and the General Principles of Good Governance. In addition, Sandra is a deputy counselor at the Central Appeals Board.

“It's important to maintain a sense of justice. As a civil servant, you work for society. That's your compass! I want to be able to look myself in the mirror all the time'. - This is how Sandra sees her contribution to society.

“Words from Eva Gonzalez Perez that she spoke to her husband: “She understands”. In the series Steerloos, Kustaw Bessems speaks to Sandra Palmen for over an hour. About how, as an expert top lawyer, she experienced for the first time that her findings, now called “Memo Palmen”, were not followed up. She spoke regularly with lawyer Eva Gonzalez Perez, who was determined like a pitbull to investigate the unjust treatment of parents at her husband's childcare facility. Part of CAF 11 Hawaii. A fraud investigation was launched to investigate fraud that wasn't there at all.

Sandra Palmen had been working at the tax authorities for almost 20 years. In 2017, she was asked to write a memo to advise on a “difficult issue”. She didn't have a good feeling about it. The next day, a driving session takes place. Sandra also states that if there are any questions, she is willing to come and give an explanation. The top bosses can't remember the memo, others say it didn't reach them. In other documents, I read that it was sent to 24 people. Didn't receive all 24?

Lifechanging Event

Now, six years later, it appears that writing the memo, having to find other work, has had a major impact on her life. She notices that people have started to see her differently. As “dangerous”. Like a bomb that can go off. For her, testifying in the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry has been a unique experience that all participants recognize themselves in. It provides a sense of belonging. Two very special things that happened. She has been asked to join the Central Appeals Board and is now a deputy counselor at the Central Appeals Board where she does social assistance cases. Standing up for the interests of vulnerable people again. The day after the survey, she was contacted by Alex Brenninkmeijer, the now legendary National Ombudsman. She spoke to him a lot and when he turned 70, he gave her a men's gown that she had changed into her own toga now, with his name carefully inscribed.

READ HERE:

1. Read my LinkedIn article about this with the memo included here.

2. sandra palms (trouw.nl)

3. The following article from Follow the Money.

The benefits scandal: what's up with the official's ethics

THIJS JANSEN

HANS WILMINK

6 CONNECTIONS

70 CONTRIBUTIONS

The Allowance Affair has made one thing clear: officials took a tough approach to parents suspected of fraud. Not a shred of compassion. Whistleblowers were fired. The cabinet wants “such problems never to happen again”. Top officials and the outgoing cabinet are now forging revolutionary plans. But what went wrong with the officials' sense of ethics?

“How has it been possible to stop the allowance for 300 citizens in this way (incorrect legal basis, disregard for legal protection, breach of due diligence, breach of the justification requirement and the distribution of evidence). How was it possible that objections lingered for two years? ' This is what the stunned official Sandra Palmen wrote in a memo about the case involving childminding agency Dadim to the Supplements/Tax Administration Management Team in March 2017.

She was engaged to advise top management “independently” and “objectively” on how to implement laws and regulations and how to protect citizens' rights. She recommended that the complaints in this case be upheld and that they offer a “form of compensation”. Palmen found that the basic principles of good governance had been seriously violated. Her advice was ignored and hundreds of citizens faced (unnecessary) years of financial and mental hardship. The management team was no longer happy with Palmen's advice. The Allowance affair would ultimately affect tens of thousands of parents, of whom nearly 25,000 came forward for compensation of 30,000 euros.

The tax authorities kept Palmen's memo under wraps for a long time, including before the House, the Donner Committee and journalists. Even the Parliamentary Interrogation Committee Childcare Allowance (POK) only received the full text when Palmen read it aloud during her interrogation. Only then was the unpainted memo sent to the House of Representatives.

Achieving 'targets' turned out to be more important than treating citizens fairly.

Before that, another official with the same criticism had also stalled. Pierre Niessen, who was back in the tidings came, dealt with objections to the Tax Administration/Surcharges Collection Department in the years 2014 to 2016. He warned executives several times that when dealing with surcharges or debts, parents were being unfairly harshly dealt with and that legal protection was not in order. Achieving 'targets' turned out to be more important than treating citizens fairly. Niessen became increasingly isolated at work by the tax authorities. He burned out, and left the service in 2016 to retire. From a recently made public research KPMG now appears that he was “completely right” in five of his six reports of abuses. This included non-compliance with laws and regulations when dealing with parents' objections to, for example, a reduction or recovery of their childcare allowance.

Niessen recently received an apology from outgoing Secretary of State Alexandra van Huffelen for Finance and was invited to play a role in what he believes is the most necessary cultural change at the tax authorities. Niessen last week: “Supervisors must be able to be held personally accountable for their decisions. For that, they receive a high salary. If they don't want to take responsibility, they can also earn less. '

The cultural change that Niessen wanted is indeed urgent: the complete internal failure of these two officials who did an excellent job shows that the professional antenna of an important part of the civil service at Surcharges was completely misadjusted. They did not realize or did not want to realize that they could exercise far-reaching power over citizens, and that they were granted that privilege only on the condition that they act lawfully. How did this come to this? And what needs to be done to prevent this in the future? The cabinet and top officials — in response to the Allowance Affair — recently made proposals for this. Are they adequate?

The official as customer manager

The officials' incorrectly adjusted antenna is primarily due to the inadequate development and maintenance of the sense of being an authority figure who exercises power over citizens. The famous slogan of the tax authorities “We can't make it more fun, but easier” is perhaps the best expression of that flawed awareness. In doing so, the tax authorities excused us citizens for its public task: sorry, we have an annoying task, which is to take your money; and then the service reassures us by promising that it will take us as little time as possible. As if that's our main concern! Why not promise to make taxation “more equitable”? The tax authorities chose 'easier' because they apparently saw citizens primarily as customers.

This approach was and still is found in many executive government services. That's what (too) the official who can force the unemployed to take work with sanctions was called “customer manager” until recently. It is alienating and misleading that the person with such means of power sees citizens as customers. That word has been extended far beyond its logical limits here. Normally, it refers to someone who is completely free to purchase a product or service in exchange for money. They can also decide to find another provider if they don't like it. However, when it comes to reintegration and taxation, citizens are not free to choose.

Citizens who do not comply with the voluntary customer regime have themselves to thank for being dealt with harshly. After all, the citizen is either a customer or a villain.

Such an advertising slogan as that of the tax authorities does not let the obligations imposed by the state on citizens disappear like snow in the sun. The state is not an à la carte arrangement. Officials who like to be labelled as customer managers often have much less affinity with the power aspects of their work. If they use their enforcement powers, it is against their will, because this should not be necessary. The reasoning may then be that citizens who do not comply with the pleasant voluntary customer regime have themselves to thank for being dealt with harshly. After all, the citizen is either a customer or a scoundrel. There is nothing in between in this regime.

In the Allowance affair, it is striking that the tax authorities made extensive use of “reverse evidence” with dramatic consequences for parents: surcharges were stopped, huge amounts were recovered, and it was up to the parents to show that they had been a good “customer”. People deliberately took the risk that the good guys would suffer from the evil. This soured customer thinking is hard to distinguish from flat “taking back”, “an eye for an eye”, collective punishment: behavior that definitely does not belong under the rule of law.

In doing so, officials are squandering their authority with citizens. They can expect officials to be up to their duties and to continue to act under the rule of law, even when things get difficult or annoying. When citizens — sometimes unexpectedly — have to deal with the exercise of power by officials, they mainly want to be treated fairly, lawfully and properly. Citizens want officials to embody the public interest in a convincing and effective way. This is only possible if they themselves accept who they really are and what they should stand for. Only then will others accept that too.

The official as a regular employee

The current misadjusted antenna of the officials (in addition to his role as customer manager) can also be explained by the (mainly symbolic) “normalization” of the special position of officials. For a long time, this was mainly symbolized by the right to more extensive protection from dismissal than that of ordinary employees. The traditional motivation for this was protection against political influence: administrators would therefore not be able to easily fire critical officials. That was and still is important, because officials must be able to contradict their political bosses without fear of flying out immediately.

It is not surprising that a government that sees citizens as customers for decades is increasingly positioning the official as an ordinary employee. As of 1 January 2020, this protection against dismissal expired. The House of Representatives, led by D66 and the CDA, had taken the initiative to do this many years earlier. This lengthy and legally very laborious operation is called the 'standardisation' of official employment conditions and employment relationships. The consequences for the official's legal position are probably not as drastic as the supporters and opponents thought. Internal dissent has already been badly tolerated by administrative management and political administrators, regardless of the additional protection against dismissal.

The standardisation operation confirms the apparently widely accepted idea that the official fulfils a 'normal' role that is not fundamentally different from an ordinary employee

This is what Arthur Gotlieb, senior advisor at the Dutch Health Authority (NZa), experienced, for example. A subsequent investigation (just like Niessen) confirmed his critical advice and reports about the NZa's inadequate role. But he received a poor staff review, became isolated, saw no way out, and committed suicide in 2014.

The essential problem of the standardisation operation runs deeper: it is the ultimate confirmation of the apparently widely accepted idea that the official fulfils a 'normal' role that is not fundamentally different from an ordinary employee. The official normalization of civil service status was only the completion of a comprehensive decades-long standardisation: people paid less and less attention to the special nature of the official function.

Flemish official duties and rights

The officials' incorrectly adjusted antenna is also explained by the vile official duties and rights that remain for the official as customer manager and ordinary employee. The official has remained special to a very limited extent: formally, some public law preconditions for official functioning have remained in the Public Service Act.

It states “that the official is obliged to fulfill the obligations incumbent on him by or under the law and resulting from his duties and also to behave as befits a good official” (article 6); and that government employers are not only obliged to ensure the taking the oath or promise by the official upon commencement of employment (article 5), but also for the establishment of a code of conduct for good official conduct (article 4). The basis for this is the Code of Conduct for Rich Integrity. This includes three values: independence and impartiality, secondly, reliability and care and, finally, personal responsibility.

However, the implementation of this is largely behavioral restrictive (which the official is not allowed to do). It is significant that “independence and impartiality” focuses on “no conflict of interest and no nepotism”. The Code of Conduct also formulates the prohibitions and restrictions on dealing with (confidential) information; accepting gifts and ancillary functions; and entering into financial relationships. Of course, a public servant who is not honest cannot be a professional. But that does not mean that the official who strictly complies with all the prohibitions is a good professional...

It was calculated that 20 percent of good parents would suffer from 80 percent of “wrong” parents.

The Allowances affair shows the only limit that officials saw: being whistled back by others, such as by the House of Representatives or a court ruling. A weekly report by the infamous CAF team said: “CAF has as a direct order from the general director of taxation [Blokpoel, red.] to explore the limits of treatment therein. Even if it were eventually found out at the hearing [in court, red.] that we have to go back to treatment is an acceptable risk. ' In addition, it was calculated that 20 percent of good parents would suffer from 80 percent “wrong” parents. These numbers were based on a 'feeling', as then Director General Peter Veld stated during his interrogation by the Parliamentary Interrogation Committee.

The current package of official duties and rights lacks the duty to work in accordance with the principles of good administration and the right to work with integrity, even if it does not suit administrative superiors or political administrators.

In June 2020 — just after the civil service standardisation was legally implemented — the Council of State wrote in its opinion on ministerial responsibility that there were uncertainties about official standards and recommended introducing a code. Ten years earlier, during the discussion of the initiative law on standardization in 2010, the then minister Ronald Plasterk had already promised the House of Representatives to come up with an official statute. In it, he would positive establish core values and behavioral standards for “good government”. Plasterk came back from that later, because, he says, the need was no longer felt. And that is exactly the problem: people no longer feel any urgency to clarify official roles and professional standards. There is also no common administrative training.

The official sees himself as a “normal” employee which must mainly meet quantitative targets; if executor who 'simply' has to implement the law; and if loyal political assistant that shields the minister

The absence of an official code with clear obligations and rights and the absence of related training courses means that the official does not have a clear normative identity in practice. He sees himself as a “normal” employee which must mainly meet quantitative targets; if executor who 'simply' has to implement the law; and if loyal political assistant that shields the minister. The collective normative compass is poorly developed and therefore questionable personal views can be given space.

A sad recent example is top official Paul Abels who spent years writing “inadmissible” tweets about Pieter Omtzigt, while he was responsible for his safety as department head of the National Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism and Security. Abels mentioned the Member of Parliament include 'the master of conspiracy thinking' and 'an unguided projectile that arouses irritation'.

Discrimination

In the Benefits Affair, it seems very likely that the discriminatory views of officials played a role in implementing policy. In 2019, the General Director of Allowances at the tax authorities already acknowledged to the Data Protection Authority: Dutch citizenship was used by the tax authorities in the childcare allowance until July 2018 and — up to a week before the interview with supervisors — also in housing allowance. Non-Dutch citizenship was a distinguishing criterion and increased risk of an 'incorrect' allowance claim. FTM concluded earlier that the tax authorities discriminated.

These derailments are related to the structural neglect of the official's normative identity in recent decades. That identity cannot be left to the random individual conscience of each official, but must be consciously learned, shared and maintained collectively. The government is an institution that, at best, creates a stable value pattern that structures, stimulates and supports the integrity of the official.

“So don't throw pregnant women in jail, don't sell the belongings of a mother with small children, and don't withhold care from someone who isn't really a “model citizen” because of psychoses.”

For years, Barend Rombout headed the transverse Bureau Frontlijn in Rotterdam. He always tried to practice basic decency. He defines this as follows: “Things you don't do as a director, official or counselor because they go against human dignity and your own norms and values.” This definition beautifully expresses that the government must maintain respect for human dignity at all times, and that you should also address your own conscience. Rombout explains briefly what this means: “So don't throw pregnant women in jail, don't sell the household effects of a mother with small children, don't withhold the allowance or allowance from someone who really needs it, and don't withhold care from someone who isn't really a “model citizen” due to psychoses. '

Rediscovery of an official as authority figure after the Allowance Affair

Rutte III cabinet resigned under the report Ongekend Onrecht van de Parlementaire ondervragingscommissie Kinderopvangtoeslag (verder afgekort tot POK-rapport). Media bestempelden dit aftreden veelal cynisch als een symbolische stap die weinig zal veranderen. Maar onmiddellijk na haar val heeft de demissionaire regering een aantal opvallende reacties op belangrijke rapporten aan de Tweede Kamer gestuurd: de reactie op het POK-rapport, maar vooral de tot nu toe veel minder opgemerkte kabinetsbrief over de twee rapporten Werken aan Uitvoering van de consultancy-tak van de topambtenaren van de Algemene Bestuursdienst.

Deze rapporten en de reactie daarop tonen dat zowel de Rijks-topambtenaren (ABD) als het kabinet lessen over het belang van ambtelijk vakmanschap hebben proberen te trekken. De belangrijkste les is dat de geloofwaardigheid van de overheid afhankelijk is van de kwaliteit van de uitvoering. Dit idee is duidelijk geïnspireerd op een van de belangrijke lessen uit het manifest Groter denken, kleiner doen van de huidige informateur Herman Tjeenk Willink.

De kabinetsbrieven hangen nauw samen. De belangrijkste motivatie om werk te maken van ambtelijk vakmanschap is treffend samengevat in de brief over het POK-rapport waarin de regering bezweert dat zij lessen uit de Toeslagenaffaire zal trekken, want ‘dergelijke problemen mogen nooit meer gebeuren’. Het kabinet wil zeker stellen dat beleid en bestuur nooit meer ernstige signalen uit de uitvoering missen. Daarom kondigt het een rijksbreed meerjarig programma aan dat de ambtelijke werkwijzen en verhoudingen flink moet veranderen. De brief schetst al globaal hoe het kabinet ambtelijk vakmanschap wil versterken:

MARK RUTTE, MINISTER-PRESIDENT

De norm is dat ambtenaren werken op basis van openheid en verantwoording. Dat ze kunnen omgaan met tegenspraak en direct contact met burgers. En dat hen daarbij de maatschappelijke opgave helder voor ogen staat

‘De rol van ambtenaren is om te adviseren en handelen vanuit hun professioneel vakmanschap. Het kabinet beslist en draagt daarvoor ook de gehele verantwoordelijkheid. De norm is dat ambtenaren werken op basis van openheid en verantwoording. Dat ze kunnen omgaan met tegenspraak en direct contact met burgers. Dat ze effectief samenwerken over (organisatie)grenzen heen. En dat hen daarbij de maatschappelijke opgave helder voor ogen staat. Dat betekent niet alleen iets voor de kennis en vaardigheden van individuele ambtenaren, maar ook voor de samenstelling van teams, de manier van aansturing door leidinggevenden en de organisatorische randvoorwaarden. Dit vraagt van iedereen een bepaalde mate van realiteitsbesef dat cultuurverandering blijvende aandacht en tijd kost.’

Het ministerie van BZK organiseert een programma voor alle overheden met bewustwording, praktische uitwerking van nieuwe werkwijzen en de opleiding en training die daarvoor nodig is. Het ministerie investeert van 2021 tot 2026 dertig miljoen in ‘ambtelijk vakmanschap rijksbreed’.

Dit vakmanschapsprogramma krijgt een nadere concrete uitwerking in de brief van 5 maart waarin demissionair minister Koolmees van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid – mede namens andere bewindspersonen – officieel reageert op twee eerder aan de Kamer gestuurde rapporten over Werken in Uitvoering.

In die brief kondigt de minister drie belangrijke veranderingen aan. Ten eerste de emancipatie van de uitvoering ten opzichte van de beleidsvorming. Zeker bij de rijksoverheid heeft het werken in de beleidsvorming een hogere status dan die in de uitvoering. Er worden hogere salarissen betaald en de beleidsvorming krijgt politiek meer aandacht. Dat zal veranderen. De uitvoering moet voorop komen te staan. Want ook voor de waardering van de burger is de uitvoering het belangrijkste.

‘Professionals voelen en nemen ook zelf de ruimte om af te wijken van beleidsregels, als het concrete geval daarom vraagt’

Een tweede verandering is de nadruk op professionalisering. Die moet de rechttoe rechtaan uitvoering van regels en instructies doorbreken. Koolmees stelt dat professionals ‘ook zelf de ruimte voelen en nemen om af te wijken van beleidsregels, als het concrete geval daarom vraagt’.

Dat komt niet vanzelf, dat vergt veel aandacht van de organisatie, het management en van opleidingen en trainingen. Daar wordt een meerjarenprogramma voor opgezet die moet leiden tot een ‘transitie in durven, denken en doen’.

Een derde verandering is het voornemen om de kennis van de publieke waarden en van de algemene beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur ‘te verankeren’. Dat laatste klinkt als een opmaat naar een Code of een Statuut waarin een aantal waarden en beginselen staan die invulling geven aan de bijzondere rolvervulling door de ambtenaar. Die beginselen geven houvast bij het invullen en verantwoorden van maatwerk. Een belangrijk beginsel daarbij is dat die invulling moet worden uitgelegd, gemotiveerd, rekening houdend met de bedoelingen achter de regels.

Die drie veranderingen bij elkaar genomen kunnen een omwenteling teweegbrengen. Mits men ze niet als een stelsel van afzonderlijke maatregelen voor de korte termijn inzet, maar in een samenhangend programma voor de langere termijn. Die Code of Statuut mag dan ook geen ‘vluggertje’ worden, die moet worden ontwikkeld én er moet mee worden getraind in het programma tot professionalisering,

Uit een brief die de secretarissen-generaal op 12 april aan informateur Tjeenk Willink hebben verstuurd, wordt door deze topambtenaren al weer een volgende stap gezet. Ze kondigen daarin aan ‘in de komende maanden’ een code voor ambtelijk vakmanschap op te stellen. Daarmee verwachten zij ‘een houvast te bieden voor de praktische toepassing van waarden als integriteit, neutraliteit, openheid en ethiek en de complexe interactie tussen politiek, beleid, uitvoering, toezicht en de praktijk’

Vlucht naar voren

De door het kabinet ingeslagen richting is veelbelovend. De aangekondigde maatregelen lijken nu echter te veel op een vlucht naar voren en dat kan ten koste gaan van de zorgvuldigheid. Dit blijkt bijvoorbeeld uit een in de POK-brief aangekondigde maatregel. Daarin breekt het kabinet met de zogeheten Rutte-doctrine. Voortaan zal de regering de onderliggende ambtelijke nota’s openbaren bij elk wetsvoorstel, brief of nota die aan het parlement worden gestuurd. Het kabinet wil meer openheid geven over de afwegingen die ten grondslag liggen aan het beleid ‘door transparanter te zijn wanneer interne ambtelijke stukken worden verstrekt’. In die stukken zullen persoonlijke beleidsopvattingen van ambtenaren niet langer worden gelakt. Het kabinet wil het argument ‘persoonlijke beleidsopvattingen’ niet langer hanteren als reden om te weigeren in ‘belang van de staat’.

Zal de ambtenaar door deze algehele transparantie niet extra terughoudend worden om voor de bestuurder onwelgevallige feiten en perspectieven te presenteren?

Bij elk stuk (wetsvoorstel, brief of nota) dat de regering naar het parlement stuurt, worden de door bewindspersonen gebruikte onderliggende departementale nota’s openbaar gemaakt. Dat gebeurt vanaf 1 juli. Daarmee hoopt de regering inzage te geven in haar beleidsvorming en veel van de vragen achteraf te voorkomen. Verder wil het kabinet veel vaker technische briefings geven of tijdens commissievergaderingen technische toelichtingen laten verzorgen door ambtenaren. Tot slot wil het kabinet in dialoog met de Kamer en andere betrokken partijen bespreken hoe de ruimte voor kritische of afwijkende advisering en de veiligheid van ambtenaren te blijven waarborgen.

Deze voorgestelde algehele transparantie heeft verstrekkende gevolgen voor het functioneren van ambtenaren en politiek verantwoordelijken. Zal de ambtenaar door deze algehele transparantie niet extra terughoudend worden om voor de bestuurder onwelgevallige feiten en perspectieven te presenteren? En zal de verantwoordelijkheid voor de gemaakte keuze nog meer komen te liggen bij de politiek verantwoordelijken? Het is de vraag of zij niet naar wegen gaan zoeken om dat te vermijden. En dan verandert er dus helemaal niks. Deze per 1 juli ingaande maatregel lijkt daarom te halsoverkop ingevoerd. Is het niet belangrijk dat ambtenaren en politiek verantwoordelijken voorbereid worden op deze nieuwe situatie en dat ze weten hoe hiermee om te gaan?

Geen quick fix

De Toeslagenaffaire heeft bij het demissionaire kabinet en de topambtenaren gezorgd voor een sense of urgency om de gezagspositie van ambtenaren te verhelderen en te verbeteren. Gelukkig maar, decennialang is de bijzondere opdracht van de ambtenaar in beleid en vooral die in de uitvoering gebagatelliseerd: hij moest de burger als een klant zien en zichzelf als gewone werknemer. Deze in alle overheidsinstituties diep ingesleten ‘category mistake’ moet het kabinet echter niet door middel van een quick fix repareren.

Het nieuwe ambitieuze beleid om meer ambtelijke openheid te betrachten en om de uitvoerende ambtenaar gelijkwaardig te maken aan de beleidsambtenaar betekent vooralsnog een vlucht naar voren. Deze valt pas serieus te nemen als de aangekondigde code meer blijkt te zijn dan symboolpolitiek, en het kabinet daarin werkelijk de plichten en rechten durft vast te leggen van de ambtenaar als gezagsdrager. Bovendien moet de overheid een consistent verplicht opleidingsaanbod voor alle Nederlandse ambtenaren opzetten. De normen en waarden van de Nederlandse ambtenaar moeten duidelijke invulling krijgen en stevig gevoed worden.

Het is aan de overheid om er actief voor te zorgen dat de meeste ambtenaren deugen

De Toeslagenaffaire heeft in beeld gebracht hoe keihard de overheid ten opzichte van gewone burgers opereert. Dat is echter geen uitzondering. Jesse Frederik heeft er in zijn boek Zo hadden we het niet bedoeld op gewezen dat de slachtoffers van deze affaire niet alleen staan in hun gevoel van machteloosheid: ‘Er zijn talloze mensen gedupeerd door dramatische wetgeving. Wie een dag meeloopt met een deurwaarder komt ze geheid tegen.’ Hij noemt onder andere de Wet aansprakelijkheidsverzekering motorrijtuigen, de Fraudewet, de pgb-wetgeving. Echter niet alleen de wetgeving is dramatisch, maar ook de uitvoering. Daarom is het aan de overheid om er actief voor te zorgen dat de meeste ambtenaren deugen. De hulp en het voorbeeld van ambtenaren die de moed hadden te deugen in de moeilijkste omstandigheden , zoals Pierre Niessen, Sandra Palmen en Barend Rombout, zijn daarbij van grote betekenis.

Gerelateerde artikelen

• Follow the Money duikt in de wereld van de georganiseerde misdaad
• Corona en belastingtrucs maken van Pfizer het meest winstgevende bedrijf van Nederland
• Klacht over Nederlands pensioenstelsel leidt tot nader onderzoek door de Europese Commissie

Deel dit artikel, je vrienden lezen het dan gratis

Auteur:Thijs JansenMedeoprichter en directeur van Stichting Beroepseer.

Gevolgd door 25 leden

VOLG THIJS JANSEN

Auteur:Hans WilminkHans Wilmink is socioloog en oud-ambtenaar. Sinds zijn pensionering beijvert hij zich voor ambtelijk vakmanschap.

Gevolgd door 123 leden h!L