The municipality of Huizen was not prepared for the large-scale threats to two homes on the Roef last year. Especially when an explosive went off in the street during the threats, the policy and the team of the municipality were not prepared for the incident. That is a clear conclusion from the internal evaluation of the events last summer.
Should Huizen unexpectedly end up in the same situation again, the municipality must have a ‘sturdier and more mature organisation’ to be able to manage everything.
The evaluation report shows that the municipal organization was not prepared for a crisis of this magnitude. In July 2022, for example, the local crisis organization appears to have been silent for some time. There is no current approach to crisis management for administrators and civil servants. The last plan dates from 2014. In addition, there has been no education, training and practice for some time.
In the first weekend of July, the decision is made that the residents of two homes on the Roef must be brought to safety as quickly as possible and mayor Niek Meijer has decided to close the homes for ten days. There is a real, criminal threat to these addresses.
Big fright
A week later it is clear how serious it is when an explosive goes off in front of one of the houses in the night from Saturday to Sunday. The house was destroyed, along with damage to neighboring homes. Not only is there a lot of material damage, but there is a good scare in the area.
Read also
Throw
At the moment that all this is happening, the municipality appears to be short handed in the field of crisis management. That vacancy has not yet been filled. In addition, several civil servants are on vacation or are about to go on vacation. It is then rowing with the few belts there are and that with an outdated crisis structure. In this crisis situation, which lasts from July to the end of December, Huizen has received help from external parties.
Which knowledge?
“Official and administrative authorities quickly jumped into the ‘do-stand'”, can be read in the evaluation. “It would have gained in value if internal consideration had been given to the question of which organization was needed to manage the crisis in a structured manner and what knowledge was needed at the table to advise at an administrative level,” it continued.
According to the municipality, this will not happen again if another serious incident occurs. Huizen has now started drawing up a new policy and this year time has been made available for education, training and exercises. At the end of last year, it was already decided to expand the Public Order and Safety team, so that there is more staff.
“Due to the limited criminal information available, it was difficult to provide the right arguments for the decisions that were taken”
It is not only unclear to the outside world what exactly is involved, but the evaluation shows that this is also a problem in the town hall. This makes it very difficult for officials to get a good idea of the magnitude of the threat. The only thing that the mayor announces at a certain point is that it is about a quarrel in the Dutch drug environment.
‘Very closed’
In the town hall they hardly get any information from the police. According to the municipality, the corps is ‘very closed’. In addition, the mayor feels a lot of pressure from the police and the Public Prosecution Service (OM) to keep the homes closed. “Due to the limited criminal information available, it was difficult to provide the right arguments, more than the threat assessment of the police and the Public Prosecution Service, for the decisions that were taken.”
The accusation of limited arguments not to allow the residents to return was therefore thrown at Meijer in December by the preliminary relief judge. Closure is therefore no longer tenable and the residents are allowed to return. This is not yet possible for the residents of the destroyed house, because the damage has not yet been repaired.
The collaborating parties are very satisfied with the communication that has gone out the door. During the crisis situation, the municipality is responsible for informing those involved, local residents and other interested parties. The mayor does indicate that he should have paid more attention to communication with the residents of the two closed homes. In press conversations he has gradually shown that the mutual relationship was difficult.
Are missing
The evaluation includes the entire timeline: from the first contacts with the residents in question on July 2 to the end of December when the judge indicates that the residents may return to their homes. Striking in this chronological summary is the absence of the residents’ meeting a few days before the explosion. The other on July 10 is listed.
At that first meeting it is known that an arrest has been made and the residents have been brought to safety. The mayor reassures those present: he has reduced the security measures and it is safe again. A promise that lasts about 48 hours.
No estimation error
That statement was not an error of judgment. Meijer gives that answer a few days after the explosion. Those words are unfortunate to say the least and certainly deserve reflection in an evaluation, in which communication is also an important pillar.
What is also missing is the mayor’s communication with the press. The relationship with a number of journalists and one press photographer is tense, but not a word can be read about this either, as is a recommendation on how things could be improved. That puts the satisfactory conclusion about successful crisis communication in a different light.
Several lessons that the municipality is now drawing from that more than five months of crisis are better thinking in terms of scenarios, keeping the deputy mayor better informed of what is going on and remaining critical. Not only to the collaborating partners, but also to the organization itself. On Thursday, September 14, the House of Representatives will discuss the evaluation.