Complaints and Codes of Conduct

If you think there is a case of inappropriate behavior, don’t keep it to yourself but discuss it, even as a witness. This, of course, takes courage. But we stand for a culture in which students and staff can report things without fear of detriment or unfair treatment. The contact persons will always treat information confidentially.

Contact person: vertrouwenspersonen-ongewenstgedrag@uu.nl

Download the Complaints procedure for students.

—

Complaints procedure for students regarding inappropriate behavior at University College Roosevelt

Preamble
The Executive Board expects everyone within University College Roosevelt, both staff and students, to treat each other with respect and integrity and to be able to work or study in a pleasant and safe environment. The general framework for everyone’s behavior is laid down in University College Roosevelt’s Code of Conduct, Rules of Behavior.

If the learning or working environment is adversely affected by the behavior of these others (fellow students, lecturers, colleagues, supervisors), it is important to discuss this with them. If this does not help or if students feel unable to address the other directly students can go to the Confidential Advisor for Students for advice and support. The Confidential Advisor will discuss the problem with the student and look for possible solutions. The Confidential Advisor can also mediate to either reach a solution or speed up the process.

If the student feels that the complaint is severe, or if it is difficult to discuss or if the problem was not solved informally, the student can file a complaint. The procedure for filing a complaint is described in this document.

I. General provisions

Article 1
In these regulations, the terms below have the following meanings:

The accused: The employee or student to whose behavior the complaint relates;
Aggression, violence: To harass, threat or attack an employee or student psychologically, physically or verbally;
Board of Trustees: The Board of Trustees of University College Roosevelt (UCR); it is the legally required monitoring body of UCR.
Bullying: Intimidating behavior of a structural character by one or more employees or  against one or more employees or students;
Chair: Chair of the Complaints Committee. The Student Complaints Coordinator acts as Chair of the committee.
Complainant: The student who submits a complaint about inappropriate behavior;
Complaint: A document written by a student making the complaint about perceived inappropriate behavior;
Complaints Committee: The Committee composed by the Student Complaints Coordinator to deal with and advise on a specific written complaint on inappropriate behavior.
Confidential Advisor for Students: The independent officer (student counselor) appointed by the Executive Board to whom the student confronted with inappropriate behavior or the accused can turn for advice and support;
Discrimination: To discriminate without justification, insult or act violently against staff or students on the grounds of religion, personal beliefs, political opinion, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, civil status, age, disability or chronic illness or for any other reason;
Employee: A person employed by UCR or working under the responsibility of UCR as a temporary employee, interim worker or trainee;
Executive Board: The Executive Board of UCR;
Inappropriate behavior:  Any conduct, act or omission of an act, the physical, mental or social consequences of which are perceived as negative. This includes in any case intimidation, sexual harassment, discrimination, aggression, violence and bullying in the workplace and UCR campus;
Intimidation: Any form of verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct with the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, adversely affecting work or study performance or creating an unsafe working or study environment;
Sexual harassment: Any form of verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, adversely affecting work or creating an unsafe working environment;
Student: A person enrolled at UCR as a student, extraneous or course participant;
Student Complaints Coordinator: The person appointed by the Executive Board who receives and processes complaints and acts as Chair of the Complaints Committee;
UCR: University College Roosevelt.

Article 2
A student at UCR who experiences inappropriate behavior by an employee or student of UCR may, for a period of three years thereafter, turn to the Confidential Advisor for Students for support and advice. The Confidential Advisor is bound to professional confidentiality. The Confidential Advisor will discuss the problem with the student and look for possible solutions. If appreciated and wanted the Confidential Advisor can mediate to either reach a solution or speed up the process. If the student feels that the complaint is severe, or if it is difficult to discuss or if the problem was not solved informally, the student can file a complaint to the Student Complaints Coordinator (SCC). The Confidential Advisor for Students can (if needed) support the student in reporting the complaint. If the complaint involves an employee of UCR the Confidential Advisor for Students can, depending on the nature of the complaint and only with permission of the student, contact the external Confidential Advisor for advice on handling the complaint.

Article 3
a. The Executive Board will appoint a Student Complaints Coordinator who receives the complaint, coordinates the complaints procedure and composes the Complaints Committee.
b. The Student Complaints Coordinator will not deal with anonymous complaints.
c. Complaints submitted more than three years after the event occurred to which the complaint relates will not be considered, unless the Student Complaints Coordinator sees reason to make an exception in a particular case.
d. A students who wants to file a complaint against the Student Complaints Coordinator should contact the confidential advisor for employees.

II. The Complaints Committee

Composition: Depending on the parties involved in the complaint.

Article 4
The Student Complaints Coordinator is Chair of the Complaints Committee and will appoint an ad hoc Complaints Committee to deal with and advise on a specific written complaint on inappropriate behavior.

The ad hoc Complaints Committee consists of:
a. the Student Complaints Coordinator who will also act as Chair;
b. one member to be appointed from among UCR’s academic staff;
c. head of Student & Education Office.

Article 5
The members of the committee may not have any personal interest in dealing with the complaint and may not be involved in the complaint.

Task

Article 6

The task of the Complaints Committee is to
a. investigate the complaint about inappropriate behavior;
b. advise the Executive Board on the admissibility and merits of a complaint.

If the complaint concerns a member of the Executive Board, the committee will advise the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees then takes over the duties from article 17 from the Executive Board;

Powers

Article 7
a. To the extent necessary for performing its task, the Complaints Committee has access to all organizational units and all relevant files, in compliance with privacy legislation. In this context, the Complaints Committee is entitled to hold discussions with all staff members or students.
b. The Complaints Committee may consult experts, whether or not employed at UCR. A report will be made of the consultation.

III. The complaints procedure

Article 8
A complaint must be submitted in writing with or without the help of the Confidential Adviser and must state the following:

a. the description of the inappropriate behavior;
b. the name of the accused;
c. the steps taken by the person making the complaint in this respect and any written documents relating thereto. These documents will be submitted to the Complaints Committee.

The complaint must be sent via e-mail to the Student Complaints Coordinator, studentcomplaintscoordinator@ucr.nl

Article 9
As soon as the Student Complaints Coordinator has received a complaint, it will confirm receipt of the complaint via e-mail and inform the person making the complaint whether the complaint is admissible.

A complaint is not admissible

• if it does not comply with the definitions of this procedure;
• if it has been submitted after the term specified in Article 2 and the Complaints Committee sees no reason to make an exception in the particular case;
• if it is submitted anonymously;
• if it has already been dealt with by the Complaints Committee earlier, unless new facts or circumstances have come to light;
• if there is a concurrence with objection proceedings, legal proceedings or a criminal investigation;
• if the interest of the person making the complaint or the severity of the inappropriate behavior described is manifestly insufficient.

Article 10
If the complaint does not yet meet the requirements of Article 8, the committee may give the person making the complaint the opportunity to supplement the complaint.

Article 11
If the Student Complaints Coordinator considers the complaint inadmissible, the coordinator will immediately advise the Executive Board of this.

Article 12

If the Student Complaints Coordinator considers the complaint admissible, the coordinator will:

a. inform the person making the complaint that the substance of the complaint will be assessed and that in principle the maximum duration of processing is six weeks, calculated from the date of receiving the full complaint;
b. inform the accused of the complaint by sending the complaint (including the name(s) of the complainant(s)) and related documents, information about the further procedure;
c. give the accused the opportunity to respond in writing to the complaint within a specified time limit, and
d. immediately upon receipt, forward the accused’s written response to the person making the complaint.

Article 13
a. As part its investigation, the committee will give the person making the complaint and the accused the opportunity to be heard, unless they state in writing that they waive their right to be heard.
b. In principle, the person making the complaint and the accused will be heard in each other’s presence, but this can be deviated from if a joint hearing impedes the careful handling of the complaint or if the committee expects facts or circumstances to emerge which should not be disclosed to the other party for compelling reasons.
c. The committee may – whether or not at the request of the person making the complaint or the accused – also hear other persons as witnesses or experts.

Article 14
During the investigation the person making the complaint and the accused may be assisted by a counsellor of their own choice, from within or outside UCR.

Article 15
The hearings of the committee are not public.

Article 16
Within six weeks of receiving the full complaint, the committee will draw up an advise in writing for the Executive Board on the merits of the complaint.
If the six-week period is not feasible, delivering the opinion may be postponed by two weeks. Longer postponement is only possible with the written consent of the person making the complaint.

Article 17
a. Within four weeks of receiving the committee’s advice on the admissibility or merits of the complaint, the Executive Board will take a decision on the complaint and on any measures or sanctions to be taken. If the Executive Board deviates from the advice, it will explain why.
b. The Executive Board will send the person making the complaint and the accused its decision in writing, together with the committee’s advice.
c. The Executive Board will inform the committee of its decision.

IV. Final provisions

Article 18
The Executive Board will ensure that this procedure is sufficiently communicated.

Article 19
This procedure can be cited as the ‘Complaints procedure for inappropriate behavior’. The procedure has been adopted by the Executive Board in accordance with the UCR Council, on June 10, 2020.

Students can find mental health resources and further points of contact on the intranet page about Well-being.

Follow the complaint procedure in the Student Handbook, Section D. Student Charter, article 4.3 Complaints.

1. UCR greatly values student involvement in the academic process. It is inevitable that from time-to-time disagreements will arise. A complaint is an opportunity to review the quality of the academic process, and make improvements where possible.
2. As such, UCR welcomes constructive criticism and input from students and faculty. The general rule is that a student with a complaint contacts the person involved directly. If they cannot resolve the problem together, the student can then contact the Head of the Department/office involved. The complaint procedure for instructors and tutors works as follows:
   1. When a student has a complaint about an instructor, this should first be discussed with the instructor. If the two cannot resolve the problem together, the student can ask the Head of Department to help resolve the matter. (The student is encouraged to ask the Academic Affairs Council for advice.)
   2. When a student has a complaint about a tutor or departmental advisor, this should first be discussed with the tutor or advisor. If the two cannot resolve the problem together, the student can ask the Senior Tutor to help resolve the matter. (The student is encouraged to ask the Academic Affairs Council for advice.)
   3. When a student has a complaint about a Head of Department or the Senior Tutor, the student can ask the Director of Education to help resolve the matter.
   4. For all other complaints, the student should also contact the person involved directly. If students are not sure whom to approach, they can ask advice from the UCR Student Complaints Coordinator via SCC@ucr.nl.
3. If a student feels that a complaint about UCR has not been solved to the students’ satisfaction, the student can also file a formal complaint. All formal complaints about the bachelor program of UCR will be handled by UCR’s Student Complaints Coordinator via SCC@ucr.nl. The complaint should be put in writing and submitted within 20 working days after the problem first occurred. (If the student can show there are extenuating circumstances, a complaint will be considered within 60 working days.) It is the student’s
   responsibility that all relevant information is included in the complaint. The student will be informed in writing regarding the outcome of the complaint within 20 working days after the complaint has been submitted. If – following the decision – a student remains of the opinion that UCR has not resolved the complaint adequately, the student has the option of submitting a complaint to the National Ombudsman (www.nationaleombudsman.nl).
4. If the complaint concerns inappropriate behavior, then other terms apply. See the code of conduct and the relevant procedures on: https://www.ucr.nl/integrity-at-ucr/.
5. If a student feels that a complaint about Utrecht University has not been solved to the students’ satisfaction, the student can also file a formal complaint. The Utrecht University Complaints Coordinator handles complaints about university services. Procedures for filing such a complaint can be found in the Utrecht University Student Charter. If – following the
   decision – a student remains of the opinion that Utrecht University has not resolved the complaint adequately, the student has the option of submitting a complaint to the National Ombudsman. (www.nationaleombudsman.nl).
6. UCR can only handle complaints about UCR’s Bachelor’s program and events in the academic buildings.
7. Complaints regarding events within student housing fall under the complaints procedures of Gapph Student Housing.

At UCR we treat each other with respect. We act with integrity. However, if you have experienced something unpleasant or have a concern, it is important not to keep it to yourself. The Executive Board has appointed confidential advisors on personnel-related matters and inappropriate behavior as confidential advisors for whistleblowers. Do not hesitate to contact the relevant person mentioned below, who is there to help you.

I want to speak to someone about wrongdoing in the organization or personnel and ombuds-related matters

The Ombuds Persons for Staff from Utrecht University are available to UCR employees. If as an employee you have questions or reports about work-related matters, it is important not to keep these to yourself. Your manager is normally your first point of contact. You can also contact the Ombudspersons for a confidential conversation and personal advice on for instance assessments, career moves, the relationship with your manager, working conditions, cooperation with colleagues, appointments and contracts, or other work-related issues.

There are two Ombudspersons for UCR employees: Annemieke Meijer and Sandrien Banens. You can contact them directly if you would prefer to speak to one of them specifically, or send an email to the email address that they both read.
Email: ombudsman-personeel@uu.nl.
Phone: +31 6 34 53 66 54 (Annemieke); +31 6 24 86 31 51 (Sandrien).

I want to speak to someone about inappropriate behavior

If you think there is a case of inappropriate behavior, don’t keep it to yourself but discuss it, even as a witness.

Employees who have complaints or questions about circumstances or events at work can go to the Confidential Advisor for Employees. These complaints or questions can be about misconduct/inappropriate behavior of a colleague or supervisor, the work atmosphere, or how complaints or issues are handled. Employees who suspect misconduct, where the public interest is at stake, can also contact the confidential counselor for information, advice, and support. Consider the following situations:

• violation of legal regulations,
• danger to public health
• the threat to the safety of persons,
• risk of environmental damage,
• danger to the proper functioning of the civil service or company as a result of incorrect actions or negligence.

Contact persons: Jeroen van Duikeren and Jose van den Boomgaard
T: 085-3031265/ 06-30212060
E: info@conflictcentrum.nl

Download the Complaint procedure for employees.

Complaints procedure for employees regarding inappropriate behavior at University College Roosevelt

Preamble
The Executive Board expects everyone within University College Roosevelt, both staff and students, to treat each other with respect and integrity and to be able to work or study in a pleasant and safe environment. The general framework for everyone’s behavior is laid down in University College Roosevelt Code of Conduct, with specific rules of conduct in – amongst others – the Code of Conduct to prevent and tackle inappropriate behavior.

If the learning or working environment is adversely affected by the behavior of these others (fellow students, lecturers, colleagues, supervisors), it is important to discuss this with them and/or your supervisor/UCR management. If this does not help or if individuals feel unable to address the other directly an employee can contact the Confidential Advisor for Employees. Employees can discuss confidential matters with the Confidential Advisor, who is bound to professional confidentiality. A Confidential Advisor can, though only with the client’s permission, mediate to either reach a solution or speed up the process.

If the employee feels that the complaint is severe, or if it is difficult to discuss or if the problem was not solved informally, the employee can report a complaint. The Confidential Advisor can also help the employee in reporting the complaint and can support the employee during the procedure. The procedure for reporting a complaint is described in this document.

I. General provisions

Article 1
In these regulations, the terms below have the following meanings:

The accused: The employee or student to whose behavior the complaint relates;
Aggression, violence: To harass, threat or attack an employee or student psychologically, physically or verbally;
Board of Trustees: The Board of Trustees of University College Roosevelt (UCR); it is the legally required monitoring body of UCR.
Bullying: Intimidating behavior of a structural character by one or more employees or  against one or more employees or students;
Chair: The Chair of the Complaints Committee is appointed by the Executive Board and receives and processes complaints and acts as Chair of the Complaints Committee. The Chair is the only permanent member of the Complaints Committee and has no connection to UCR.
Complainant: The employee who submits a complaint about inappropriate behavior;
Complaint: A document written by a employee making the complaint about perceived inappropriate behavior;
Complaints Committee: The Committee composed by the Chair to deal with and advise on a specific written complaint on inappropriate behavior. All members of the committee are external members and have no connection to UCR.
Confidential Advisor for Employees: The independent officer appointed by the Executive Board to whom the employee confronted with inappropriate behavior or the accused can turn for advice and support;
Discrimination: To discriminate without justification, insult or act violently against staff or students on the grounds of religion, personal beliefs, political opinion, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, civil status, age, disability or chronic illness or for any other reason;
Employee: A person employed by UCR or working under the responsibility of UCR as a temporary employee, interim worker or trainee;
Executive Board: The Executive Board of UCR;
Inappropriate behavior:  Any conduct, act or omission of an act, the physical, mental or social consequences of which are perceived as negative. This includes in any case intimidation, sexual harassment, discrimination, aggression, violence and bullying in the workplace and UCR campus;
Intimidation: Any form of verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct with the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, adversely affecting work or study performance or creating an unsafe working or study environment;
Sexual harassment: Any form of verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, adversely affecting work or creating an unsafe working environment;
Student: A person enrolled at UCR as a student, extraneous or course participant;
UCR: University College Roosevelt.

Article 2
a. An employee who experiences inappropriate behavior by an employee or student of UCR may, for a period of three years thereafter, turn to the Confidential Advisor or submit a complaint to the Executive Board, which immediately forwards the complaint to the Confidential Advisor.
b. The Complaints Committee will not deal with anonymous complaints.
c. Complaints submitted more than three years after the event occurred to which the complaint relates will not be considered, unless the Confidential Advisor sees reason to make an exception in a particular case.

Article 3
Anyone who acquires knowledge of confidential information in any way within the framework of this procedure is obliged to keep this information confidential.

Article 4
Persons who have invoked this complaints procedure, provided assistance in this respect or acted as witness may not suffer any unnecessary disadvantage in the progress of their career prospects or otherwise.

II.The Confidential Advisor for employees

Article 5
The Executive Board will appoint a Confidential Advisor to whom the person making the complaint or the accused can turn. The appointment or designation will be for two years with the possibility of extension.

Article 6
The Confidential Advisor is accountable solely to the Executive Board for the performance of his or her duties.

Article 7
The tasks of the Confidential Advisor include in any case:
a. acting as a point of contact for employees who are confronted with inappropriate behavior;
b. assisting and supporting the person making the report and, if necessary, referring him or her to experts;
c. advising on any steps to be taken;
d. trying, at the request of the person making the report, to find a solution to the undesirable situation through mediation;
e. supporting the person making the report at his or her request in submitting a complaint or supporting the accused in preparing a response to the complaint;
f. advising the Executive Board and other relevant organizational units, on request and otherwise, on preventing and tackling inappropriate behavior;
g. providing information and publicity on his or her own position;
h. Registering reports and reporting anonymously to the Executive Board each year on the number and nature of reports. The file of a report must be destroyed no later than two years after the processing of that report has been completed.

Article 8
The Confidential Advisor will not act in respect of a particular report without the consent of the person who contacted the Confidential Advisor.

Article 9
To the extent necessary for performing the mediation task, the Confidential Advisor may request access to organizational units and relevant files, in compliance with privacy legislation. In this context, the Confidential Advisor is entitled to hold discussions with staff members.

Article 10
The Confidential Advisor may not simultaneously assist both the person making the report and the person to whom the report relates. In such case the Confidential Advisor must refer to a fellow Confidential Advisor.

Article 11
The Confidential Advisor is authorized to bring a case to the attention of the Executive Board if he/she receives one or more reports that the persons making the report have not submitted or will not submit to the Complaints Committee for reasons of their own. The names of the persons making the report will not be mentioned without their permission.

Article 12
The Confidential Advisor will maintain the necessary contacts with persons and institutions that can identify inappropriate behavior within UCR on account of their position.

Article 13

If the complaint concerns a member of the Executive Board, the Confidential Advisor will advise the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees then takes over the duties from article 31 from the Executive Board;

III. The Complaints Committee

Article 14
a. The Executive Board appoints an external member as Chair of the Complaints Committee for a period of three years. The Chair may be reappointed. The Chair is the only permanent member of the Complaints Committee.
b. The Executive Board will instruct the Chair of the Complaints Committee to form an external ad hoc Complaints Committee to deal with and investigate a complaint and draw up a written advice for the Executive Board.

Article 15
The Complaints Committee consists of:
a. a Chair who is also a member;
b. depending on the parties involved in the complaint, the Chair will compose a UCR external Complaints Committee.

Article 16
The Chair and members of the Complaints Committee
a. have sufficient psychosocial and/or legal knowledge with regard to inappropriate behavior;
b. are of irreproachable behavior.
The Chair must also have extensive experience in chairing a committee.

Article 17
When appointing the members, the Chair will strive for the greatest possible diversity in the members’ backgrounds.
a. A Confidential Adviser cannot also be appointed as a member of the Complaints Committee.
b. A UCR employee cannot be appointed as member of the Complaints Committee.

Article 18
The members of the committee may not have any personal interest in dealing with the complaint and may not be involved in the complaint.

Task

Article 19
The task of the Complaints Committee is to
a. investigate complaints about inappropriate behavior;
b. advise the Executive Board on the admissibility and merits of a complaint.
If the complaint concerns a member of the Executive Board, the committee will advise the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees then takes over the duties from article 31 from the Executive Board;
c. register complaints and provide the Executive Board each year with an anonymized report on the number and nature of the complaints. The file of a report must be destroyed no later than two years after the processing of that report has been completed.

Powers

Article 20
a. To the extent necessary for performing its task, the Complaints Committee has access to all organizational units and all relevant files, in compliance with privacy legislation. In this context, the Complaints Committee is entitled to hold discussions with all staff members or students.
b. The Complaints Committee may consult external experts. A report will be made of the consultation.

IV. The complaints procedure

Article 21
A complaint must be submitted in writing with or without the help of the Confidential Adviser and must state the following:
a. the description of the inappropriate behavior;
b. the name of the accused;
c. the steps taken by the person making the complaint in this respect and any written documents relating thereto. These documents will be submitted to the Complaints Committee.

The complaint must be addressed to the Executive Board or, in case the complaint concerns a member of the Executive Board, to the Board of Trustees. The complaint must be submitted via e-mail to the Chair of the committee: complaints@ucr.nl.

Article 22
a. The Chair of the committee will confirm receipt of the complaint in writing and inform the person making the complaint that the admissibility of the complaint will first be examined.
b. The Chair of the committee will inform the Executive Board or, in case the complaint concerns a member of the Executive Board, the Board of Trustees about the receipt of the complaint.

Article 23
The Chair of the Complaints Committee will assess the admissibility of the complaint within three weeks of receipt. A complaint is not admissible
– if it does not comply with the definitions of this procedure;
– if it has been submitted after the term specified in Article 2 and the Complaints Committee sees no reason to make an exception in the particular case;
– if it is submitted anonymously;
– if it has already been dealt with by the Complaints Committee earlier, unless new facts or circumstances have come to light;
– if there is a concurrence with objection proceedings, legal proceedings or a criminal investigation;
– if the interest of the person making the complaint or the severity of the inappropriate behavior described is manifestly insufficient.

Article 24
If the complaint does not yet meet the requirements, the Chair of the committee may give the person making the complaint the opportunity to supplement the complaint. The three-week period for assessing admissibility will then commence from the time of receiving the additional information.

Article 25
If the Chair of the committee considers the complaint inadmissible, it will immediately advise the Executive Board of this.

Article 26
If the Chair of the committee considers the complaint admissible, it will:
a. compose an ad hoc Complaints Committee as described in articles 14-18;
b. inform the person making the complaint that the substance of the complaint will be assessed and that in principle the maximum duration of processing is ten weeks, calculated from the date of receiving the full complaint;
c. inform the accused of the complaint by sending the complaint and related documents, information about the further procedure and draw attention to the possibility of being assisted by a Confidential Adviser or a counsellor of their own choice;
d. give the accused the opportunity to respond in writing to the complaint within a specified time limit;
e. immediately upon receipt, forward the accused’s written response to the person making the complaint.

Article 27
a. As part its investigation, the committee will give the person making the complaint and the accused the opportunity to be heard, unless they state in writing that they waive their right to be heard.
b. In principle, the person making the complaint and the accused will be heard in each other’s presence, but this can be deviated from if a joint hearing impedes the careful handling of the complaint or if the committee expects facts or circumstances to emerge which should not be disclosed to the other party for compelling reasons.
c. The committee may – whether or not at the request of the person making the complaint or the accused – also hear other persons as witnesses or experts.
d. A written report of each hearing will be drawn up by the Complaints Committee and signed for approval by the person involved. If the person involved is not prepared to sign, he or she will be given the opportunity to add written comments to the report.

Article 28
During the investigation the person making the complaint and the accused may be assisted by a counsellor of their own choice, from within or outside UCR.

Article 29
The hearings of the committee are not public.

Article 30
Within ten weeks of receiving the full complaint, the committee will advise the Executive Board on the merits of the complaint and on a possible reimbursement of the fee of the legal counsellor who assisted the person making the complaint or the accused.

If the ten-week period is not feasible, delivering the opinion may be postponed by four weeks. Longer postponement is only possible with the written consent of the person making the complaint.

Article 31
a. Within four weeks of receiving the committee’s advice on the admissibility (Art. 28) or merits (Art. 33) of the complaint, the Executive Board will take a decision on the complaint and on any measures or sanctions to be taken. If the Executive Board deviates from the advice, it will explain why.
b. The Executive Board will send the person making the complaint and the accused its decision in writing, together with the committee’s advice.
c. The Executive Board will inform the committee of its decision.

V. Final provisions

Article 32
The Executive Board will ensure that this procedure is sufficiently communicated.

Article 33
This procedure can be cited as the ‘Complaints procedure for inappropriate behavior’. The procedure has been adopted by the Executive Board in accordance with UCR Labor Representation Board, and as far as students are concerned with the consent of UCR Council, on June 10, 2020.

Download the Whisteblower regulations (Klokkenluidersregeling).

Sectoral Regulation on Reporting Suspected Malpractice Dutch Universities
(Dutch Universities Whistleblower Policy 2025)
Preamble
in view of the importance that the Dutch universities attach to having a proper and coherent integrity policy and, as part of this, a proper procedure for reporting suspected malpractice;
having regard to the Whistleblowers Protection Act and the EU Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (Directive EU 2019/1937), which aim to improve the possibilities of reporting suspected malpractice that is of public interest and to better protect the reporting person from prejudice;
the Dutch Universities Sectoral Regulation on Reporting Suspected Malpractice was adopted as of 1 January 2025 and forms part of the Collective Labour Agreement for Dutch Universities (CAO-NU) as laid down in Article J.6 of the CAO-NU.

Article 1 Definitions
1. In this regulation, the following terms will have the following meanings:
a. Adviser: a person who can be consulted in confidence by a reporting person about suspected malpractice;
b. Advisory Department of the Whistleblowers Authority: the Advisory Department of the Authority referred to in Article 3a(2) of the Whistleblowers Protection Act;
c. Investigation Department of the Whistleblowers Authority: the Investigation Department of the Authority referred to in Article 3a(3) of the Whistleblowers Protection Act;
d. Executive Board: the Executive Board of a university as referred to in Article 1.1(1)(a) of the CAO-NU to which a report is made;
e. Committee: the Independent Malpractice Committee established by the Executive Board, being a committee of independent officers as referred to in Article 2(2)(d) of the Whistleblowers Protection Act;
f. Lawyer: a person with the title of Master of Laws or LLM.
g. Reporting Person: a natural person who reports or discloses suspected malpractice in the context of work-related activities at the university. This can also be a third party, such as a student at the university;
h. Report: the report of suspected malpractice under this regulation;
i. Malpractice: a violation or risk of violation of Union law, or an act or omission that places the public interest at risk due to:
1. a violation or risk of violation of a statutory regulation or internal rules that involve a specific obligation and that are established by an employer on the basis of a statutory regulation,
2. a danger to public health,
3. a danger to the safety of individuals,
4. a danger to the environment,
5. a danger to the effectiveness of the organisation as a result of an inappropriate act or omission.
In any event, the public interest is at stake if the act or omission does not only affect personal interests and there is either a pattern or a structural nature, or the act or omission is serious or extensive;
j. Ombudsperson: the ombudsperson appointed by the university;
k. Suspected malpractice: the reporting person’s suspicion of malpractice within the university. This suspicion should be based on reasonable grounds and based on knowledge gained at the university;
l. Confidential adviser: the person appointed to act in this capacity within the university;
m. University: university as referred to in Article 1.1(1)(a) of the CAO-NU;
n. Employer: the university;
o. Work-related context: future, current or past work-related activities at the university through which, regardless of the nature of that work, individuals may obtain information about malpractice and in which those individuals may experience prejudice as referred to in Articles 11 and 12 if they were to report such information.
2. If a report concerns the Executive Board or Executive Board member, ‘the Executive Board’ is replaced with ‘the Supervisory Board’ in this regulation.

Article 2 Information, advice and support
1. A reporting person may seek information, advice and support in relation to suspected malpractice from an adviser in confidence.
2. A reporting person may also seek information, advice and support in relation to suspected malpractice from a confidential adviser or the university’s ombudsperson.
3. A reporting person may also seek information, advice and support in relation to suspected malpractice from the Advisory Department of the Whistleblowers Authority.

Article 3 Internal reports
1. A reporting person who suspected malpractice within the university may report to the committee designated for this purpose by the Executive Board or the university’s central reporting centre as referred to in the CAO-NU.
2. The report may be made either in writing or verbally or, at the request of the reporting person, within a reasonable time by means of an on-site interview with the committee. If the report is made verbally (via telephone or voice message system), it is then recorded in writing and dated. The reporting person will receive a copy.

Article 4 External reports
The reporting person may at any time make an external report of suspected malpractice to the designated bodies mentioned in Article 2c of the Whistleblowers Protection Act.
Article 5 Appointment of a committee
1. The Executive Board will appoint a committee whose task is to investigate a reported suspicion of malpractice and to advise the Executive Board on this report.
2. The committee will consist of three members and at least three deputy members, including an independent external chair and a deputy external chair. At least one of the members will be a lawyer and one will be a behavioural expert.
3. The members and deputy members of the committee are independent of the university or legal entities affiliated to the university insofar as the university has a substantial interest in such entities. One of the members of the committee may be employed by the university, as long as they are functionally independent of the Executive Board.
4. Committee members will be appointed for a period of four years and are eligible for reappointment.
5. The committee will be supported by a secretary appointed by the Executive Board.
6. The appointment of a member of the committee may be terminated by the Executive Board, after the member has been heard, if there are compelling reasons to do so.

Article 6 Handling of internal reports
1. The reporting person will receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the committee within seven calendar days of a report being received.
2. The committee will inform the Executive Board of the receipt of the report and decide on its handling within six weeks of receiving the report in compliance with Article 8.
3. The committee will in all cases inform the reporting person within three months of receiving the report about the assessment or follow-up of the report, without prejudice to the time limits stated in Articles 8 and 9.

Article 7 The committee’s investigation
1. The committee will investigate the report and advise the Executive Board accordingly. The advice will comply with Article 1a of the Whistleblowers Protection Act.
2. The committee is authorised to obtain all information necessary for the investigation within the entire university. Employees are required to cooperate with this investigation. The committee may request access to any documentation and correspondence the committee deems relevant to the investigation of the report.
3. The committee may hear or consult witnesses and experts, regardless of whether they are attached to the university. A report of the hearing or consultation will subsequently be drawn up.

Article 8 The committee’s procedure
1. The committee will assess and decide whether to handle a report based on criteria that include the following:
a. the report must relate to suspected malpractice;
b. the suspicion of malpractice must be based on reasonable grounds;
c. a clear description of the suspected malpractice, the time period during which it took place, any employees involved and any relevant written documents or other evidence.
2. The committee will not consider a report if:
a. the provisions of the previous paragraph have not been complied with;
b. the report is manifestly unfounded;
c. the public interest in an investigation or the seriousness of the malpractice is manifestly insufficient;
d. the suspected malpractice is subject to the assessment of authorities tasked with investigating criminal offences, the supervision of compliance with any statutory regulation or the Whistleblowers Authority;
e. another report concerning the same malpractice is currently being or has been handled by the committee, unless a new fact or circumstance has become known and this may lead to a different assessment of the malpractice in question;
f. an irrevocable court decision has already been rendered on the malpractice.
3. The committee may give the reporting person an opportunity to supplement the report within a set time limit. In that case, the deadline for the investigation will be suspended.
4. The committee will inform the Executive Board within five weeks of receiving the report whether the report will be handled.
5. If the report is handled, the committee will give the reporting person an opportunity to be heard. A report of the hearing will subsequently be drawn up.
6. The committee may also hear others. A report of the hearing will subsequently be drawn up.
7. Within 12 weeks of sending the acknowledgement of receipt, the reporting person will be provided with information on the assessment and, where applicable, follow-up of the report.
8. The committee will send the adopted investigation report to the Executive Board.
9. The hearings and reports of the committee will not be public until decided otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 9.
10. Insofar as the procedure of the committee is not laid down in this regulation, it will be determined by the committee or its chair as they see fit.

Article 9 Subsequent procedure
1. The Executive Board will adopt a position on the reported suspicion of malpractice, taking into account the investigation report and the committee’s advice. Within four weeks of receiving the investigation report and the committee’s advice, the Executive Board will inform the reporting person in writing of its position on the reported suspicion of malpractice in a manner that does not affect the rights and freedoms of others, in particular the person or persons to whom the report relates. This document will state the measures that have been or will be taken as a result of the report. The investigation report and the committee’s advice will be sent with the position of the Executive Board. The Executive Board will decide whether to make the investigation report public in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This does not prevent the reporting person from making their own report public.
2. If it becomes clear that the position cannot be issued within the aforementioned four weeks of receipt of the investigation report, the reporting person will be notified in writing, stating the reason why a longer period is necessary. This information will contain an indication of the period within which the reporting person will receive the position.
3. The persons to whom the report relates will be informed by the Executive Board in the same way as the reporting person pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, unless this could harm the interests of the investigation or enforcement.

Article 10 Confidential treatment of the report and the identity of the reporting person
1. Any person involved in the handling of a report who receives information that they know or should reasonably suspect to be of a confidential nature has a duty to maintain confidentiality, except insofar as any statutory provision requires disclosure or insofar as the need to disclose arises from the duty to implement the Whistleblowers Protection Act.
2. Any person involved in a report will not disclose the identity of the reporting person and adviser or advisers without the express written consent of the reporting person and adviser or advisers and will treat information about the report in the strictest confidence.
3. The university will ensure that information on the report is stored in such a way that it is physically and digitally accessible only to those involved in the handling of this report.

Article 11 Protecting the reporting person from prejudice
1. The university will not prejudice the reporting person during and after the handling of the report in connection with reporting, on reasonable grounds, a suspicion of malpractice to the university, another organisation or an external body as referred to in Article 4.
2. As regards the person making a report, prejudice as referred to in paragraph 1 will in any case mean taking a prejudicial measure, such as:
a. dismissal or suspension;
b. a fine as referred to in Article 650 of Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code;
c. demotion;
d. withholding a promotion;
e. a negative assessment;
f. a written reprimand;
g. transfer to another administrative unit;
h. discrimination;
i. harassment, bullying or exclusion;
j. libel or slander;
k. early termination of an agreement to provide goods or services;
l. withdrawal of a licence.
3. Prejudice also includes any threat and attempt to prejudice.
4. If the university proceeds to take prejudicial measures as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 against the reporting person within a reasonable time after a report is made, the university will explain why the measures are necessary and that the measures are unrelated to reporting a suspicion of malpractice on reasonable grounds.
5. The university will ensure that managers, colleagues and lecturers of the reporting person refrain from any form of prejudice in connection with the reporting of a suspicion of malpractice on reasonable grounds that interferes with the reporting person’s professional or individual performance.
6. The university will hold employees who are guilty of prejudicing the reporting person to account for their actions and may give them a warning or impose a measure on them and remedy the prejudice.

Article 12 Protecting other persons involved from prejudice
1. The university will not prejudice other persons involved as a result of acting as an adviser to the reporting person.
2. The university will not prejudice the confidential adviser and the ombudsperson for performing the duties described in this regulation.
3. The university will not prejudice the committee or its members for performing the duties described in this regulation.
4. The university will not prejudice a person heard by the committee in connection with making a statement.
5. The university will not prejudice a person in connection with making a statement to the committee in good faith or providing information and/or documents relevant to the investigation.
6. Article 11 paragraphs 2 to 6 apply mutatis mutandis to the prejudice of the persons mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 5.

Article 13 Whistleblowers Authority investigation into prejudice to the reporting person
A reporting person who believes that they have experienced prejudice in connection with the reporting of suspected malpractice may request the Investigation Department of the Whistleblowers Authority to conduct an investigation into how the university behaved towards the reporting person in response to the reporting of suspected malpractice.

Article 14 Report, employee representation body and recording
1. The committee will draw up an annual report every year. This report will be sent to the Executive Board. The Executive Board will ensure the publication of an annual report. This report will state, in anonymised form, the number and an indication of the nature of the reports, the results of the investigation and the position of the Executive Board.
2. The Executive Board will give the employee representation body the opportunity to express its views on the handling of reports of suspected malpractice, the implementation of this regulation, and the annual report.
3. The university will record a report upon receipt in a register set up for this purpose.

Article 15 Unforeseen circumstances
In cases not covered by this regulation and not already determined by the committee on the basis of paragraph 10 of Article 8, the Executive Board or – in the case of a matter concerning the Executive Board or its members – the Supervisory Board will decide in line with the principles of the Whistleblowers Protection Act.

Article 16 Further implementation regulations
The university may adopt further administrative implementation regulations insofar as they do not affect confidentiality.

Article 17 Entry into force and cancellation of current policy
1. This regulation will enter into force on 1 January 2025, replacing an institution’s existing Whistleblower Policy as of that date.
2. This regulation will be cited as the Dutch Universities Regulation on Reporting Suspected Malpractice (Dutch Universities Whistleblower Policy).
3. Any Whistleblower Policy of an institution that exists on the date of entry into force of this regulation will be cancelled with effect from that date.
This translation of the Sectoral Regulation on Reporting Suspected Malpractice Dutch Universities (Dutch Universities Whistleblower Policy 2025) is meant as a service to non-Dutchspeaking employees of universities. However, in case of a difference of interpretation, this translation cannot be used for legal purposes. In those cases, the Dutch text of the ‘Sectorale Regeling Melden Vermoeden Misstand Nederlandse Universiteiten (Klokkenluidersregeling NU 2025)’ is binding.

Explanatory notes
General
The Whistleblowers Protection Act (Wet bescherming klokkenluiders, Wbk) entered into force on 18 February 2023. The law is the successor to the old Whistleblowers Authority Act (Wet Huis voor klokkenluiders) and implements Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 (OJEU 2019, L 305).
The Wbk protects persons reporting malpractice or suspected malpractice within organisations. Under the Wbk, persons reporting malpractice are better protected than before. If they claim to have been prejudiced by their employer as a result of their report, the burden of proof will now fall on the employer to prove that this is not the case. The law also protects reporting persons who are not employees. Employers must meet stricter requirements regarding their internal procedures for reporting malpractice. For example, after a report, employers must provide information to the reporting person on the progress of the investigation within three months at most.
The university sector has opted for a sectoral regulation based on the CAO-NU. Article J.6 of the CAO-NU states that this regulation is part of the CAO-NU.
Besides employees, it also protects others who carry out work-related activities, such as interns, self-employed workers, volunteers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and job applicants. These individuals are no longer required to report their concerns internally first, but can also choose to directly contact the Whistleblowers Authority or another competent authority, such as the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets or the Dutch Data Protection Authority. Those who assist a reporting person and internal investigators of a report are now also protected from prejudice.
Some parts of the Whistleblower Protection Act have not yet entered into force. These include the obligation for employers to also handle anonymous reports. Once these regulations come into force, this Whistleblower Policy will be updated.
This sectoral regulation has been drawn up by Universities of the Netherlands (UNL) and applies to all universities and parties to the collective labour agreement. Under Article 2 of the Wbk, employers are required to establish an internal procedure for reporting suspected malpractice within the organisation. Based on the sectoral regulation based on the CLA, universities can develop their own further implementation regulations in line with Article 16 of the sectoral regulation.

Explanatory Notes Article by Article
Article 1
This article sets out the main definitions. The guiding principles for this are the terms set out in the Wbk.
With regard to the term reporting person (under g), the broad term from the Wbk is used, i.e. including students (and external students etc.) and other persons performing work-related activities (such as contractors, suppliers, etc.).
The term malpractice (under i ) includes the legal definition. This concerns a violation of Union law, or an act or omission that places the public interest at risk in various situations as described under 1. to 5.
In any event, the public interest is at stake if the act or omission does not only affect personal interests and there is a pattern or a structural nature, or the act or omission is serious or extensive. A conflict in the working environment or any other environment therefore does not in itself constitute malpractice within the meaning of the Act and this regulation as such. There must be more than solely a personal interest before the public interest is at risk.
Subsection k stipulates that the suspicion of malpractice must always be based on reasonable grounds arising from knowledge gained by the reporting person during work or study.
Subsection o defines the term ‘work-related context’. This covers current as well as future and past work-related activities.
If the report concerns the Executive Board or Executive Board of Directors member, the Supervisory Board will act in the place of the Executive Board.

Article 2
The reporting person can consult an adviser in confidence. These can also be people from outside the organisation, such as a lawyer, a trade union or a legal expenses insurer. The reporting person can of course also contact various officials within the organisation, such as confidential advisers or the ombudsperson. A reporting person can also contact the Whistleblowers Authority for information and advice.

Article 3
This article describes the procedure for internal reports to the university. The employer has a choice of appointing a separate independent officer for this purpose or setting up a separate independent committee. This sectoral regulation has opted for a committee consisting of independent officers.

Article 4
The reporting person may make an external report at any time to the designated bodies mentioned in the Wbk. This means that they are not required to make an internal report first. Reporting to the Whistleblowers Authority seems the most obvious option, however the choice also depends on the nature and content of the report. External reports can also be made to bodies such as the Dutch Data Protection Authority or the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate.

Article 5
This article provides for the appointment of an independent committee. Setting up a committee is not mandatory under the Wbk. The Wbk only requires the appointment of one or more independent officers. As stated above, the sectoral regulation opts for a committee.
Each university sets up a committee and appoints its members. Universities have chosen to cooperate in this appointment of committee members. They will appoint the same group of committee members for each university, enabling committee members to gain more knowledge and experience within the sector and allowing committees to operate in a similar way across the university sector. The composition of the committee may change for each report, depending on the nature and volume of expected reports. Malpractice may involve very different aspects that may require different expertise.
The chosen approach was to appoint around 10 of the same committee members per university to ensure sufficiently diverse forms of expertise. The chair and deputy chair are always external, while the other members are independent of the Executive Board. One of these members can be employed by the university itself (but functionally independent), in order to ensure sufficient knowledge of the institution and its internal contacts.

Article 6
It is important to confirm the report in good time. The law stipulates that the reporting person must receive an acknowledgement of receipt within seven calendar days of a report being received. The committee must reach a decision on whether to handle the report within six weeks of receiving the report. By law, the reporting person must in all cases be informed within three months about the assessment or follow-up of the report, without prejudice to the time limits specified in Articles 8 and 9. It is important during the procedure to keep the reporting person regularly informed about the status of the report.

Article 7
If the report is handled, the committee considers the report and issues advice on it to the Executive Board. The committee is authorised to obtain necessary information. Employees are obliged to cooperate in this regard. Witnesses and experts may also be heard. The confidentiality of the report will be maintained during this process in accordance with Article 10.

Article 8
The committee first examines whether the report will be handled. Based on the grounds mentioned in Article 6 of the Wbk, the decision may be taken not to handle a report. The report must relate to suspected malpractice within the meaning of this regulation. The public interest in an investigation or the seriousness of the malpractice must justify an investigation. Other relevant factors include the timing of the report. If a report is not made in good time, it may be impossible to investigate the malpractice.
If the committee is of the opinion that the report should be handled, an investigation will be launched. The reporting person and others will be given the opportunity to be heard. The hearings are not open to the public. The committee issues a report and advice to the Executive Board.

Article 9
After receiving the report and advice, the Executive Board notifies the reporting person in writing of its position on the report within four weeks. If this is not possible within four weeks,
the reporting person will be informed immediately, with an indication of the period within which a position can be expected.
Summary of deadlines:
– Acknowledgement of receipt of report: within seven calendar days
– Decision on whether report will be handled: within six weeks
– Information on progress in the handling of the report: within three months
– Position of the Executive Board: within four weeks of receipt of report/advice of independent officer/committee, with possibility of extension.

Article 10
The confidentiality of the procedure is important throughout. For the entire duration of the procedure, the identity of the reporting person and adviser or advisers will not be disclosed without the consent of the reporting person and adviser or advisers.

Article 11
The reporting person must not be prejudiced as a result of the report. This is an important principle. The ban on prejudice covers any form of prejudice, including threats of and attempts to prejudice. It covers all kinds of measures and actions that are detrimental or harmful in the context of an employment relationship. Suspension, dismissal or similar measures are the most far-reaching forms of prejudice, however it also includes less far-reaching measures such as transfer of tasks.

Article 12
Individuals other than the reporting person are also protected from prejudice. For example, the reporting person’s adviser, the confidential adviser, the ombudsperson, members of the committee and employees participating in the investigation also enjoy protection.

Article 13
A reporting person who believes they have experienced prejudice in connection with making a report can have this investigated by a body such as the Whistleblowers Authority.

Article 14
Upon receipt, the employer submits the reports to a register set up for this purpose. The employer also produces an annual report and involves the employee representation body in this process.

Article 15
In cases not covered by this regulation, the committee, its chair or the Executive Board will decide in line with the principles of the Wbk.

Article 16
The employer may adopt implementation regulations such as rules of procedure, which may cover aspects such as where and how the report can be made, university-specific interpretation of regulations, further details of deadlines, etc.

Article 17
This sectoral regulation will enter into force on 1 January 2025. From that date, in conjunction with Articles 10.7 and 10.8 of the CAO-NU, the university’s own Whistleblower
Regulations in force until that date will cease to apply. Any rules of procedure may be readopted to reflect the new regulation.

Download the Rules of Behavior.

Rules of Behavior

What principles direct our behavior?

INTRODUCTION

The Code of Conduct provides the framework for behavior and reflection for employees and students of UCR. The Code describes the values that govern the way people work and study at UCR. The Code enables these individuals to act independently in a responsible manner according to the University’s values and standards and offers scope for calling others to account in this respect. The Code of Conduct also provides transparency to the public: our faculty and staff operate within a clear ethical framework and people know what they can expect in their dealings with our faculty and staff. Specific rules of conduct have been laid down in individual regulations. These regulations also provide complaint procedures and the scope for sanctions.

How is UCR different from other universities? What do we wish to achieve?

MISSION

UCR is a small-scale and intensive Liberal Arts & Science college offering an undergraduate curriculum of international standing. Its ambitions are:

• to  build the foundation for all academic degrees and professional challenges that lay ahead in the students’ future;
• to provide young people with an academic, intercultural education;
• to offer an academic program, tailor-made to students’ individual interests;
• to train new generations of researchers;
• to train academics who are able to combine knowledge and professional skills;
• to contribute to solutions to complex problems that can no longer be solved with a mono-disciplinary approach.

What do we believe in?

 CORE VALUES AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ROOSEVELT

Inspiration, ambition, independence & integrity and commitment & responsibility are the core values that define both the conduct and attitude of the students and employees of University College Roosevelt.

Inspiration
Our faculty, staff and students are inspired and motivated in their work and studies. Faculty, staff and students also are an inspiration to each other. Lecturers and researchers act as role models for their students as well as for each other. Students set an example to their fellow students. Being passionate and inspired, it follows that our faculty, staff and our students are inquisitive and eager to learn, they are critical and investigative and open to new ideas, opinions and perspectives.

 Ambitions
Our faculty, staff and student are very demanding of themselves. They appreciate a critical and intercultural dialogue about the ambitions they set themselves. Our degree program seeks to reach the top. Support and administrative staff strive to continue developing professionalism in order to facilitate the primary process of teaching. Initiative and entrepreneurship among faculty, staff and students are valuated highly. Exceptional performances gain attention and recognition.

Independence & integrity
UCR creates ample opportunity for faculty, staff and students to nurture their talents. Independent thought is an essential feature for our academic community. The high level of freedom places considerable demands on the fair and responsible behavior of our faculty, staff and students: they are expected to be motivated, conscientious, trustworthy and morally responsible. Integrity requires also an open and respectful interaction between faculty, staff and students.

Commitment & responsibility
UCR is a community of motivated students, faculty and staff; they work together, study together, and discover together. They encourage one other and share their knowledge. Faculty, staff and students feel jointly responsible for the achievement of the objectives of UCR. They are aware of their individual social responsibility and commitments. They contribute to the quality of our society through innovative and intensive teaching and research.

Anyone working or studying at UCR:

• Is inspired and motivated;
• Sets ambitious challenges for themselves;
• Enjoys ample opportunity for independent thought, but respects the considerable demands of responsibility and integrity that go hand in hand with this freedom;
• Shows commitments and responsibility towards faculty, staff, students and society;
• Is loyal to the organization and prevents any harm being done to UCR’s reputation and interests. 

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ROOSEVELT WORKING ENVIRONMENT

With its high expectations of staff, faculty and students, University College Roosevelt recognizes that attaining such standards requires good facilities for work and study. UCR has therefore taken steps to create the best possible working environment.

Personal developments
UCR is a continuously learning, innovative organization. Everyone who works or studies at UCR has the scope to nurture their talents and to continue developing their professionalism. UCR appreciates independent thoughts and initiative. UCR respects the privacy of its faculty, staff and students.

Cooperation
In order to realize the shared objectives, UCR strongly encourages cooperation among faculty and staff, among students and between faculty, staff and students. The cooperation extends across disciplines. Social engagements and commitment to the local and global environments are further principles underpinning UCR’s teaching (and research) activities. Cooperation with social partner is sought.

Fair remuneration
UCR faculty and staff can be sure of a fair remuneration of their work; both financially and in terms of professional recognition and appreciation. Appointments and promotions are based on the principle of equal opportunities. UCR attaches great value to creating sufficient training and development opportunities.

Information and co-governance
Faculty, staff and students are provided with clear information about their right to participate in decision-making. UCR encourages the right to vote and stand in elections.

Safe and healthy environment
UCR ensures a safe and healthy working environment. UCR periodically gauges the faculty, staff and students’ perception of and satisfaction with their work and study. UCR aspires to make its business operations sustainable.

UCR offers its faculty, staff and students:

• Sufficient scope for personal development and cooperation;
• Fair renumeration and appreciation;
• Co-governance in important decisions;
• A safe[1] and healthy work environment.

FACULTY and STAFF

An inspiring and innovative university: what demands does achieve this place on its supervisors, instructors, examiners, academic, support and administrative staff?

Everyone’s input is recognized
Faculty and staff alike appreciate each other’s activities. They treat one another in a respectful and honest way and aspire to use clear and open communication. They are prepared to help each other and work towards a healthy team spirit. Members of faculty and staff do not insult each other and refrain from discrimination and sexual intimidation. Faculty and staff members do act conscientiously when making use of or managing any UCR resources such as budgets, equipment and the computer network.[2] They do not insult, discriminate against, or sexually harass others.

Employees show an active interest in UCR’s common good, and hence its policy development. Employees demonstrate this interest by participating in representative advisory committees, for example, and attending the UCR days, open days and townhall meetings. The executive board is open to criticism and suggestions from their employees. UCR embraces the VSNU Code for Good Governance in Dutch Universities (2019).

Model behavior
UCR supervisors act as role models to others. They set clear objectives, encourage their faculty and staff to perform well, create the conditions for inspiring team cooperation, and call to account any colleagues whose behavior is unacceptable. Supervisors are open to criticism and suggestions made by members of faculty and staff. The annual performance and development reflections (APDR’s) lay the foundation for a clear understanding between supervisor and faculty/staff.

Quality and enthusiasm
Instructors work hard to guarantee a high level of intercultural teaching and educational quality and the sound supervision of students. They continue to develop their skills and keep working towards improvement, which enables them to provide high-quality teaching in various forms that motivate students. Instructors treat their students with respect. They set clear expectations and call to account any student whose behavior is unacceptable and detrimental to the teaching activities and/or other students. Instructors make sure that the assignments and exams are appropriate to the objectives of the course and see to it that these are carefully assessed. They are aware of the larger liberal arts and sciences context of which their courses are separate elements. A fair assessment requires that the instructor prevents any student from taking credit for a fellow-student’s achievement and other people’s achievements in general. UCR instructors act with integrity, abide by official class schedules, listen to constructive criticism, and are regularly available to consult with students, both during and after lectures, personally, and by e-mail or other digital channels.

Professionalism
Integrity, conscientiousness and expertise are the foundations of the professionalism of faculty and staff, with regards to teaching, research and administrative support and their cooperation with colleagues. They strive to make excellent and innovative contributions to their fields of expertise and bring these to the attention of their colleagues in the field and – where relevant – to the wider public. Faculty members are aware of their social role. When carrying out their scientific work they are aware of dilemmas and take responsibility for performing their research activities meticulously. They are aware of the guidelines for scientific integrity and The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice (VSNU).

External employment
Faculty and staff who perform work for third parties in addition to their position at UCR ensure that such external employment does not impinge on their main duties at UCR, or in any way conflict with their position at UCR. External employment may not harm UCR’s academic or business interests. Any such work performed during office hours, or any work that might generate a conflict of interest, must be reported to their supervisor and the executive board.

Faculty and staff at UCR:

• Behave honestly and respectfully towards each other and towards their students;
• Work enthusiastically to ensure the professionalism of teaching and research;
• Show an active interest in the new developments and achievements of UCR, including academic and service/support departments;
• Make conscientious use of UCR facilities;
• Are able to keep their university and personal interest clearly separate and are open about their ancillary activities.

STUDENTS

Students at UCR are preparing for careers and responsible positions in society. This requires intellectual curiosity, active participation in the study program and extra-curricular activities, and the effort necessary to achieve good grades.

Ambitions
Students at UCR wish to perform to the best of their abilities. They choose their own major to suit their talents and ambitions and they make sure they are aware of the course requirements. As they are training to become academics, students learn to work independently. To communicate effectively, to meticulously gather information meticulously, and solve problems. When preparing for their exams, assignments or tests, students work very conscientiously. When working in groups, they are cooperative and do not take credit for the achievements of their fellow-students. If they see others doing this, they raise the matter.

Commitment
Students actively participate during classes. They stimulate each other and their instructors with critical questions and well-sustained discussion; this requires sound preparation. In addition to their studies, student attached great importance to being active in student organizations and student committees as another way of being trained academically and learning to work with others. Anyone studying at UCR is expected to show an interest in social developments and the role of scientists in the public debate. 

Respect
Respect is a key concept in the contacts between students, faculty and staff of UCR. This is evident in, among other things, the style, the tone and form of address in emails and direct contacts. Students, too, show one another respect. Students are prepared to help each other without risking the others’ independence and fair assessment. They refrain from behavior that may harm their fellow-students or the quality of their education. They respect each other’s possessions and refrain from verbal, physical and digital violence, discrimination, bullying and intimidation.

Respect is also shown in the mutual contacts between students. In social and study related interaction, we expect that everyone speaks the same language. If not, the group switches to English. Inclusion is the golden rule.

Conscientiousness
Students are very conscientiousness when making use of UCR’s resources such as equipment, the computer network, the library, class rooms, educational buildings, and any other UCR facilities, incl. student housing.

Students at UCR:

• Behave honestly and respectfully towards each other and towards members of faculty and staff;
• Perform to the best of their abilities by actively participating in teaching and extra-curricular activities;
• Respect each other’s possessions and are careful when making use of UCR facilities;
• Enable instructors and students to teach and learn under optimal conditions.

FURTHER INFORMATION

UCR has laid down a number of specific rules of conduct in separate regulations. Some of these regulations include complaint procedures and sanctions. For more information can be found on the UCR website.

[1] See the social safety statement of the VSNU.

[2] See Code of conduct building and facilities at UCR.

Download the Social Safety Statement.

Social safety statement

The Dutch Universities, united in the VSNU (Association of Universities in The Netherlands) have issued the following statement on social safety (April 2019):

Dutch universities are committed to providing their students, employees, and visitors with a safe environment. Of crucial importance to Dutch universities are collegiality, integrity, equality, respect, openness, and attention to each other.

Dutch universities do not tolerate any undesirable conduct, including sexual and general harassment, aggression, bullying, or discrimination. This message is communicated at all administrative levels, from the executive board to the shop floor of research and education. It is a vital task for universities to act as effectively and appropriately as possible when there are suspicions of undesirable conduct.

Universities are responsible for offering a positive work and study environment that enables all members of the academic community to develop their talents. By their very nature, universities are institutions at which people from different backgrounds can meet and cooperate. Anyone affiliated with our universities as a student, employee, or visitor, contributes to mutually respectful treatment, regardless of origin, religious belief, sexual preference, handicap, position, or job. In sum, it is up to all persons within the institution to make an active commitment towards social safety.

Appendix: What are universities doing?

Universities learn from each other by exchanging best practices. Examples include:

• managing a properly functioning system of confidential advisers at different institutional levels;
• increasing the professionalism of confidential advisers, whose work is based on the code of conduct for the national confidential advisers association (Landelijke Vereniging voor Vertrouwenspersonen, LVVV). Institutions make sure that they provide adequate training to these advisers and that they can do a good job;
• requiring confidential advisers to account for their activities in an annual report. They cooperate closely with other university confidential advisers, in local networks of confidential advisers and the network of confidential university advisers (Netwerk Universitaire Vertrouwenspersonen, NUVP), for example;
• carefully discussing confidential advisers’ annual reports in the executive board, preferably during a joint session of the board with full attendance of confidential advisers. The annual reports will be distributed at the faculty, institutional or other administrative levels
• conducting periodical research into social safety at the institution to find out whether there is a pattern among the notifications to confidential advisers and the results of employee satisfaction surveys, as well as what measures need to be taken.

Download the Student Handbook.

Download the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

Download the Code for Good Governance from the VSNU.