This became evident from confidential documents obtained by Mare.

In a letter to the Board of Governors dated 11 July, the University Council issued a ‘predominantly negative advice on the reappointment’ and raised ‘several concerns about her performance’. Nevertheless, a week later, the Board of Governors appointed Ottow for a second four-year term.

In its negative advice, the Council states that it has received ‘several worrying signals’ about the Executive Board president’s communication style, which had supposedly created a ‘difficult work environment, particularly for subordinates’.

Ottow’s approach triggers ‘considerable pushback’, according to the Council. ‘As the Council has experienced, she tends to withdraw when things get difficult, making it hard to have a reasonable discussion based on arguments.’

‘NO VISIBLE IMPROVEMENT’

This problematic behaviour had reportedly been raised with the Board of Governors before. In the letter, the University Council asks what action was taken in response to these reports, as it ‘has not led to (...) visible improvement’.

The University Council also describes Ottow’s communication style as ‘lacking’. She is said to be impatient, making decisions too hastily, without sufficient justification, and is unwilling to share her reasoning with the Council members. She finds it ‘difficult when policies are criticised’, adopting a ‘stubborn and defensive attitude’ which makes it impossible to have ‘constructive discussions on the content’. Ottow seems to take a rigid stance before the start of a discussion and is ‘almost impossible to sway’.

The Council ‘sees an Executive Board president who acts based on fear of negative publicity’. Preventing reputational damage ‘often seems to be the number one priority, not just in communication, but within the organisation itself’.

Two examples are highlighted in the advice: the rushed communication to all staff about the evacuation of the Wijnhaven building during the pro-Palestine protest in November 2023 (where students and staff were chased on the streets by security guards) and the hasty appointment of Vice-rector Erwin Muller in April 2024. The participation body was bypassed at the time: before the University Council had had the chance to issue an advice, the announcement was made that Muller would fill the new position.

For the majority of the Council, this extensive list of objections was reason enough not to support a reappointment.

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME

In a letter dated 16 July, the Board of Governors responds to this negative advice, promising ‘to address the concerns included in your advice with the Executive Board’.

The Board of Governors states that it takes the worrying signals about the working environment surrounding the Executive Board president very seriously. ‘In our capacity as the employer of the Executive Board, we commit to implementing an improvement programme with regard to the communication style in the short term.’ The question as to whether any action has been taken in response to the previous reports remains unanswered.

Regarding the communication style, the Board of Governors also writes that ‘the University Council can play a role in this matter too, especially when it comes to how the Council is treated. As one of the Executive Board’s main discussion partners, you should have the opportunity to raise issues in this area’.

The Board of Governors dismisses the complaint that Ottow seems primarily focused on preventing reputational damage: ‘Preventing negative reputation is part of her core responsibilities associated with her portfolio. After all, her duty is to act as the university’s ‘figurehead’.’

Commenting on the disagreements over the appointment of the Vice-rector, the Supervisory Board – having previously mediated in that conflict between the Executive Board and the University Council – writes that ‘an understanding has been reached not only on suitable agreements for this role but also to start a joint improvement programme. We strongly recommend that both the Executive Board and the University Council proceed with this programme swiftly’. The Board of Governors does not comment on the demonstration at the Wijnhaven building.

CONFIDENTIALITY BREACHED

Finally, the Board of Governors states that it was unpleasantly surprised that the University Council's (confidential) negative advice had already reached the Board of Governors through other channels. ‘The breach of confidentiality is not merely potentially and personally harmful to the individuals concerned, but also to the good relations with respect to the University Council as a discussion partner of the Executive Board and the Board of Governors. We must assume that the University Council members have the professionalism and decency to be in agreement on this matter.’

Despite the negative advice, the letter ends with the decision that Ottow will be reappointed for a second term as of 8 February 2025. ‘Since this topic was discussed in both the 27 May and 24 June meetings, we consider the University Council to have been sufficiently heard regarding the reappointments. The reappointments will be announced on the university website in the near future.’

Two days later, the announcement of the reappointment appears on the website.