Mariette Hamer, government commissioner for sexually assaultive behavior, is considering creating a framework for integrity investigations, “a kind of manual”. She sees a lot going wrong in integrity investigations. “Certainly combined with confidentiality it often ends in deception. Also for the reporters,” says Hamer news hour.

Yesterday the PvdA apologized for an investigation into former MP Gijs van Dijk. The party executive concedes that reports of unlawful behavior were handled carelessly. But former House Speaker Khadija Arib and Professor Tim de Zeeuw, an astronomer at Leiden University, are also involved in integrity probes into abuse of power.

“Weak and minimal”

According to Michiel de Vries, professor of public administration, many integrity checks are unreliable. He sees that customers are increasingly sending the order or the conclusions. In 8 out of 10 cases he has previously examined, the arguments are often weak and minimal. In addition, there is hearing and hearing loss in half of the cases. “A lot of times, people want to either get rid of a person or protect them. And some agencies that get involved make money from it and listen to what the client wants.”

As an example, De Vries cites a case in which he was asked for counter-assessments last year. It was a land deal from a water board. A research agency was called in to clarify the facts, but when the results of the investigation did not meet the expectations of the client, the conclusions from the final report had to be drawn. “When the report was published, it was said that the investigators had come to no conclusion, so there was no follow-up to the case.”

license

The chairwoman of the Federal Association of Confidence Persons, Inge te Brake, doubts whether the investigating authorities, which often carry out investigations, are at all the right places for investigating cross-border behavior. “Detective agencies are often good, but manners are a completely different kind of investigation. And they do that. That’s not good, these investigations really have different starting points.”

Te Brake confirms that customers influence a research contract. Then, as a researcher, you have to wear a suit very tightly to keep your back straight, she says. “There are companies that reach for the biggest purse. See what comes of it. And there are detective agencies that need a permit, but you can get digital e-learning in an afternoon.”

Government Commissioner Hamer is also examining which instrument is best used. “Research is not always the best solution. Fortunately, there are also studies that are going well and making an important contribution to a solution. We also want to learn from these studies. For example: Under what conditions does a solution-oriented result arise.” can be expected.”

specialists

According to the defense lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops, it is high time for stricter controls by the investigative authorities. Because there is no training for integrity investigators: anyone can do it. While forensically trained investigators work on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. Just like in law.

“Examining witnesses is a specialist profession,” says Knoops. “You can’t ask a former accountant or a company director to question a witness. You need specialists, forensic investigators, people from forensic psychology for that.” For example, according to Knoops, an investigation should never be based solely on anonymous testimony. “This creates incorrect and careless reporting. It is impossible to fight back.”

Like De Vries, Knoops also sees a major problem in contracting, which is often paid for by the customer. “And if someone doesn’t want to cooperate, they’re immediately given the title: suspicious. You can see that with PvdA member Gijs van Dijk. You could say he shouldn’t have cooperated. You can see that from the reputation of these agencies. People don’t want to cooperate anymore.”

Knoops: “There is also no interpretation or standardization of what transgressive behavior is. That is entirely up to the researchers.”