In May, Leiden University published a devastating investigation report revealing that archaeologists Corinne Hofman and Menno Hoogland had engaged in serious socially transgressive behaviour for decades. In addition, the internal investigation committee found it ‘plausible’ that the duo had breached academic integrity. Following the report, the Executive Board initiated a dismissal procedure against Hofman, with the case set to be heard by the subdistrict court on 10 October.
 
Last week, Mare reported that the couple’s lawyer, Petra Charbon, had filed a request under the Open Government Act (Woo request) with the university on 12 July, partly in preparation for the court case. Among other things, she wants to access written and oral statements related to the investigation, written records of conversations based on audio recordings and subsequent correspondence.
 
However, the Executive Board has decided not to process that Woo request any further, according to a letter sent to the lawyer on 4 September and published on the university website. The Board invoked the anti-abuse provision (article 4.6) in the Woo as justification. ‘We have come to the firm belief that the Woo request was filed for the sole purpose of obtaining information necessary for the defence’, Board president Annetje Ottow writes in the letter. The university claims that the Woo request does not have to be processed if ‘it is evident that the requester has a goal other than obtaining public information’ and speaks of ‘abuse of the Woo for another purpose’. As such, the Board has decided ‘not to process the request any further’.

However, two independent Woo experts who have read the decision told Mare that this rejection is insufficiently substantiated.

‘This is not a justifiable reason for rejecting the Woo request’, says Tim Staal, director and co-founder of SPOON, the expertise centre for Woo requesters. ‘The anti-abuse provision only applies if the request is not intended to obtain information, but to harass the other party, for example by causing them a lot of unnecessary work or wasting their time. This is not reflected anywhere in the Board’s decision. By brushing aside the Woo request like this, the university itself is abusing the anti-abuse provision.’
 
‘This ground is insufficient’, independent Woo expert and lawyer Cornelis van der Sluis agrees. ‘The bar for being able to call something abuse is really high. You’d have to act in a very unreasonable, unpleasant and obnoxious manner. You only abuse the Woo if you frustrate the other party by burdening them with a lot of work, for example, and even that alone is insufficient.’
 
The university’s claim that the requester has a different motive for obtaining the information – namely to use it as a defence in court – is a ground mentioned in the law, but not one that can be easily invoked, says Van der Sluis. ‘The reason why the requester wants the information is irrelevant. Therefore, the Board’s argument is insufficient to make a claim for abuse.’

‘There is a well-defined procedure in place for the Woo that cannot simply be disregarded’, explains Staal. First, all requested documents must be collected, after which each document must be assessed to determine whether it contains information that can be refused. ‘I can very well imagine that there are passages that cannot be made public, but if that is the case, the university will have to substantiate per document why the interest of disclosing them is outweighed by the protection of other interests. It is quite rare that all information found is considered ineligible for disclosure. However, the university has now rejected the request in its entirety without providing valid justification. This is unacceptable; the request should be processed properly.’
 
Van der Sluis: ‘The privacy of those involved, or the fact that there is an ongoing employment law case are factors that might prevent disclosure. But this would have to be substantiated for each part of a document.’

OBJECTION

Lawyer Petra Charbon has informed Mare that she has sent a letter of objection to the Executive Board. ‘This is truly a bad decision, in line with how the overall process is going. We’ve been given zero information.’
 
In the letter, which was sent on Monday 9 September, she writes that the decision is ‘not only incorrect and unlawful’ but also ‘a structural refusal on the university’s part to provide Hofman and Hoogland with the information they are entitled to’.
 
Charbon describes the accusation that the archaeologist duo ‘evidently has a goal other than obtaining public information’, as the university writes, as ‘incorrect and unfounded’. Her clients do want those data to be made public, says Charbon. This is because they want to reveal ‘how the Board and other bodies have been operating since 1 January 2022’.
 
According to the lawyer, the decision ‘causes unnecessary delay which further harms Hofman and Hoogland’s interests’. She calls on the Board to reconsider the Woo request.

What if, despite this letter of objection from the lawyer, the university stands by its refusal to provide the requested information? Van der Sluis: ‘Then the university will have to provide a different justification. If they continue to invoke the anti-abuse provision, the lawyer can appeal to the court. And if the university keeps stalling until the court case on 10 October, you can ask the administrative judge to force the university to make a decision earlier.’
 
Charbon has already asked the court to ‘await the final results of the Woo request before proceeding with the request for termination’, Mare reported last week. ‘The information is of great importance for the defence.’
 
University spokesperson Caroline van Overbeeke declined to comment on the Woo experts’ findings. ‘Our letter contains a clear justification; we have no further comments on this’. When asked what the university will do in response to Charbon’s letter of objection, she replies that ‘we obviously cannot comment or anticipate on this at this time’.