Why Volt co-submitted the motion of censure

Withheld research report
The province had commissioned research into the consequences of the plans to scale back protection for old woodland growth sites. The study showed that 65% of the nature that would lose its protection is of high ecological value, if the alderman’s plans were to be implemented.

This report was initially not shared with the Provincial Council. Only after pressure from GroenLinks, who were aware that the research existed, was it made public after all. On the day of the Council meeting, a media report appeared stating that the findings were politically inconvenient and that the report had therefore been deliberately withheld.

Unequal treatment of a resident
A second, serious mistake also occurred. A resident with old woodland growth sites on his land asked the province to include these on the official map of old woodland growth sites. This map is important because it makes it easy to determine whether an area is protected.

However, the resident received a letter stating that the policy would be changed and that the small woodland patches would therefore not be included—anticipating policy that had not yet been adopted at that time. That is incorrect. Requests from residents must always be assessed on the basis of the policy currently in force, not on the basis of possible future rules. Otherwise, there is unequal treatment under the law.

In committee meetings, it was also stated that the map was complete and correct. Only later did we see the province’s letters, which showed that this resident had deliberately been treated differently.

Request for clarification
It is possible that in both cases these were unintended errors or clumsy actions. Volt does not assume bad faith. Precisely for that reason, during the Council meeting we asked for:

Full clarification, acknowledgement of the mistakes made, apologies to those involved, and concrete plans to prevent a recurrence.

However, these apologies and improvement measures did not materialize.

Motion of censure
Because acknowledgement was not forthcoming, the impression began to arise that the alderman wanted to scale back protection at all costs—so far-reaching that reports were not shared and action was taken in anticipation of policy that had not yet been adopted, with unlawful consequences for residents.
In such a situation, the Council can choose from three instruments:

• Regret: it is unfortunate that this happened,

• Censure: this is unacceptable, but you will be given another chance,

• No confidence: this is unacceptable and we want you to step down.

Together with other parties, we chose a motion of censure.

Even after the motion was submitted, the alderman was given an opportunity to acknowledge mistakes. That did not happen. Instead, the alderman stated that everything had proceeded correctly and that he merely regretted that others had formed a different impression. That was insufficient for us and reason to maintain the motion.

Although coalition parties were also critical of the alderman, they ultimately did not want to support the motion of censure. As a result, the motion did not secure a majority. The signal, however, was clear. As the VVD put it:

“Once and never again.”