The Commission was set up at the beginning of June 2018 by the College of prosecutors-General with the task of investigating whether, from 2010 to May 2014, there were indications of the existence of a relationship between the current chief Prosecutor Of the Parquet Rotterdam, at that time Attorney general (data subject 1), and the (Deputy) chief prosecutor of the functional parquet (data subject 2). The Commission also had the task of examining the question of how the award an extension of the contract to the provision of "recruitment software" to the public Prosecution Service by a company of family members of the person concerned 1 [company] is established Come. The first research was the question of how the decision was made when the appointment in 2014 of the data subject 1 to the chief officer in Rotterdam and the question of how the College has dealt with reports on a relationship between Parties 1 and 2. This inquiry was an example of the noncompliance and integrity issues they are within the Prosecutors organisation.
Prosecutor Top bypasses bidding procedures: Delivery of software by company of brother-in-law
Many questions were asked, the fourth research question concerns the establishment of a contract for the supply of software between the OM and the company of the brother-in-law of the person concerned 1 and the renewal of that contract. The investigation carried out by the Commission does not allow any conclusion other than that the tendering procedure and the renewal of the contract have not been carried out in accordance with the rules. On paper, there was a tendering procedure with three parties, but the investigation showed that after the Initial phase the procurement procedure only with the company of the brother-in-law of the person concerned 1, [company], has continued.
The fact that [company] was given a privileged position in the tendering procedure was – according to the employee charged with the tender – because he was informed after the first stage of the tendering procedure of a supervisor that it was the wish of the person concerned 1 That [company] would be the first to come out of the procurement procedure. The Commission believes that this statement is credible despite the fact that the executive denies that he would have given such a contract or received one from the person concerned. This manager acknowledges that he will have shown that one person was enthusiastic about the product that [company] could deliver. Although the person concerned has disputed that he has intervened in any way with the tender, the Commission considers it plausible that the person concerned has talked 1 with his brother-in-law about the procurement of recruitment software and that he has entered into contact with a Director DVOM/P on a possible deployment of [company] within the OM with a
Integrity BIOM (Bureau Integrity OM) and NON-Compliance
There is slow movement in the field of promoting and maintaining integrity in the organization. In the post, among other things, the recent evaluation of the Advisory Committee on the issue of integrity violations, the recently given to the head of BIOM to develop a broad compliance approach for the development, giving a follow-up to Discussions in the prosecutors as a result of "our DNA" and the encouragement of participation by employees in the "moral deliberation" initiative of the Ministry of Justice and Security.
In addition to these initiatives, the Commission makes the following recommendations:
When developing policy on integrity and the shaping of the BIOM, look at the way in which other (semi-) government organizations and other large institutions have been formed;
-Broaden the look of legal overruns of boundaries to attitude and culture, so that the organization learns of integrity violations; The still somewhat ' negative ' legalistic approach deserves refocusing on the content and scope of the activities, in particular the predominantly legal orientation and the composition of the BIOME deserves attention;
Serious Breaches of Integrity and “double standards” by Prosecutor Office
However, there were also concerns in the Commission's discussions. From the reports and the conversations, as noted above, there is a feeling that there is a difference between tackling integrity violations by judicial officials and other employees. In the case of several non-judicial officials and the participation bodies, this appears to evoke the image of ' measuring with double standards '. Some chief officers also recognized this feeling.
The difference in legality mentioned in some of the discussions, by the fact that non-compliance with the integrity of prosecutors would not be reported more often, but would be informally disclosed by the supervisor by promotion or transition to another function temporarily not be overcome.
Also, keen attention should be given that this same organization is busy on St.Maarten to justify that government and government-owned companies are accused of being in violation and surely not proven on their progress over the years after the PWC-US report which was published in 2012. Indeed this brings the discussion of “double standards”.
Conclusion of the report
Above, the Commission has referred to the doubts expressed as to whether the current College is aware of the severity and breadth of the existing problems within it and is able to respond adequately to them. In the Commission's view, the measures, measures, and initiatives envisaged above show that the publications in the NRC have had a shock effect and that the College recognizes the need for a broad approach, identifies problems and actually moves. Steps which can, in any case, be determined to step in the right direction. In this context, the Commission notes that a number of measures have already been initiated before the publications in the NRC newspaper and that the impression is that this College has been more than the case in the recent past as a College.
Whether the measures taken and measures taken now and initiatives eventually lead to the desired change of culture within it to be awaited. Courses and training are necessary but not sufficient conditions to achieve a different culture and other vision and interpretation of leadership. conversation will also have to be made within the College and within the prosecutors. It is very important that the College and the organisation should take the time and space to do so, and it is equally important that they be granted this time and space.
