I’m having my house painted white…

Perhaps it still happens: colleagues who have children in secondary school, asking you if you own a copy of a certain book that their son or daughter could use for a year. As far as I was concerned, that was never a problem: after a year I’d get the book back, they were after all very expensive and we‘re all supposed to help each other out, aren’t we?

But it was always a hassle: it had to be a certain edition and I wouldn’t have that. So I would ask a colleague if they had it and then they forgot to look, so I had to ask again. So as head of the section or as head of the Social Committee, I proposed to simply streamline it: submit a form to a section and then they could see who would have what available.

That proposal received some strong reactions. This was unheard of: theft from publishers! I do remember being shocked by that: the intensity of those reactions and the realisation slowly sinking in that I had somehow crossed a line. With the knowledge of today I would have been more aware of the dilemma: is this actually possible or is it not? Would it cause any damage with those involved? Does this comply with the rules and the goals of the school? Can I ask a colleague? Etcetera.

For the past seven years I have given workshops ‘Moral Dilemmas in the Workplace’ to court and tribunal personnel: counsellors, judges, clerks, ushers and security guards. This had all started with a speech in 1991 by the then Minister of Home Affairs, Ien Dales. The speech was entitled ‘For the integrity of public administration’ – which was shocking, because civil servants thought they had integrity simply because they were civil servants. Dales was of the opinion that this remained to be seen. She made the famous statement: You are either honest or you are not honest. Just like you are pregnant or not pregnant: there is no such thing as being a little pregnant. So there is no ‘grey area’ in that respect, in which certain things – like awarding +0.3 for an essay – could be done.

The minister argued that integrity policies should be developed at the Ministries. The same would go for the Justice Department. In 1999 this resulted in a memorandum entitled ‘Sincere Course’ and – three years later – in a program in which all employees of the Ministry of Justice were to follow a workshop on integrity. ‘Van Velzen Development’ (my wife Marjolein’s agency) has carried out this assignment in recent years and I have been active as a trainer, together with four colleagues. More than ten thousand people have passed by us in groups of fifteen. I am currently the only one who travels across the country to serve ‘broom groups’: people who were ill at a previous occasion, served in court, or were new to the organisation.

To that purpose, I report – in powersuit! – around half past eight to a courthouse, where I am frisked and then led to a conference room. There I prepare course folders and install a laptop and a beamer. From a quarter past nine, the students trickle in. At half past nine I start with a general introduction, then an introductory round and a game in which I make people veer back and forth between a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ angle. This is mainly to break the ice: courts are very hierarchical organizations, in which it is not obvious that a judge discusses his integrity with a clerk, let alone a messenger. I present them with everyday dilemmas that have nothing to do with the workplace: in the supermarket, you unload your shopping cart in your car and discover an ounce of roast beef behind the crate of beer. You have not paid the €2.10. Are you going back to settle that, yes or no?

Usually I already see the first watershed there: there are participants who say “Yes, I got lucky” or: “One time it’s me, another time it’s them – it’s usually them, by the way”, and there are judges who say that they will of course go back. I can usually play with that difference all day: differences in social position and responsibility, differences in salary and the different reactions to large supermarkets and the small neighborhood supermarket and why that is so…

Then I give a general introduction about ethics, about the concept of integrity and about the position they – as court employees – occupy in the current social balance of powers and using the incident method I discuss a film about justice employees who have become involved in a conflict situation. Around noon I give them the assignment to write down their own case, after which they have lunch for a full hour: that’s how it should be. In that hour I study the casuistries and think about the structure of the afternoon session. From half past two to half past four I discuss my own case histories – supplemented with exemplary examples that I have collected over the years – using the Socratic method of conversation: by asking leading questions, I constantly challenge them to take a stand as honestly as possible. Given the educational differences and the job and position differences, this is an exciting didactic challenge.

In the end, it usually revolves around professional secrecy, about the oath of office that they have all taken: think of recent examples of medical secrecy regarding Prince Friso and also the emergency department of the VU hospital. And especially think of those two judges in the Chipshol case! At a little past four-thirty I walk out of the building: no homework to correct; I never see those people again and the completed evaluation forms are in the bag. Direct feedback: very satisfying. On top of that, I have earned my previous monthly salary in three days…

Kees van Velzen, March 2012