The integrity policy in Limburg has rattled on all sides in recent years. Provincial executives underestimated risks, did not hold each other accountable, the King’s Commissioner had no direction and the Provincial Council had little or no control. For example, Deputy Ger Koopmans (CDA) created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
That is the conclusion of the parliamentary inquiry committee in the report ‘Blinde corners of the integrity policy of the Province of Limburg’ presented on Wednesday. The committee conducted an investigation in response to a publication in NRCabout a Koopmans supervisory board position at the Limburg dredging company Terraq.
The investigation, based, among other things, on the hearing of witnesses and on documents voluntarily made available by Koopmans, could not establish a conflict of interest. The deputy did create “the appearance of a conflict of interest” and “fallen short on several points”, the committee concludes.
For example, Koopmans forwarded a lobby email from Terraq, which had been sent to his business email address, to the official organization. The commissioner and the company have thus created “the appearance of a conflict of interest”.
The investigation by the Committee of Inquiry shows that dredging companies more often sent e-mails to Koopmans’ business address. In addition, in 2016 he used the official car with driver twice, in violation of provincial regulations, for his transport to or from his side job at Terraq.
Koopmans was addressed by a top official of the province about “the undesirability of forwarding emails”, but a discussion between the officials and the administrator was hindered by the “dominant” management style of the deputy.
Also read: Ministry intervened in affair surrounding deputy Koopmans’ side job
Guardian of Integrity
Within the Provincial Executive (GS) there was a culture in which monitoring one’s own portfolio was more important than confronting each other about integrity agreements and dilemmas. The committee of inquiry is hard on the then king’s commissioner Theo Bovens. In previous integrity issues, the Provincial Council had asked for a more active role for him as guardian of integrity. But he continued to adhere to a ‘pedagogical approach to integrity questions (putting on the agenda of moral awareness) and the choice to use politicians’ own responsibility for integrity as a starting point’. He paid ‘insufficient attention’ to the risks.
Provincial Councils failed to control. the committee judges. They inquired about compliance with agreements on additional functions and indicated that they had a poor political memory. At the same time – after a tumult arose about Koopmans’ additional positions – they did not get a good overview from the Provincial Executive. The committee: “The States are incomplete and therefore insufficiently informed by GS”.
The Committee of Inquiry also wonders why the province itself is not succeeding in uncovering integrity issues. They are ‘scheduled’ by ,,action from outside (usually NRC and/or The Limburger)”. The committee also waived public hearings under oath. The members did not consider that necessary for the truth-finding. The committee received help from the State Attorney and KPMG in its investigation.
Koopmans and Bovens are no longer in office. They resigned in April last year, just like all six other members of the GS board, after a fuss about the landscape organization IKL and the role of director and former deputy Herman Vrehen in that organization.
Also read: The integrity issues are not easy at the CDA in Limburg: ‘Motorblok party needs major maintenance’