Who Is Accountable? Concerns Over Leadership, Governance and Oversight at Saba’s EC2

I am increasingly concerned about the direction, governance, and management practices of the Expertise Center EC2 and the impact these issues are having on both employees and, most importantly, the children served by the organization.

There are concerns regarding the qualifications and suitability of the current director. It has been alleged that qualifications on her curriculum vitae were falsified. She is a biologist by training, with little to no management or special education experience, yet it was determined that she was the “most suited” candidate for the position.

If accurate, this discrepancy should be independently verified, as it raises questions regarding transparency and recruitment practices. The current director was once the chairperson of the board; she never legally deregistered from the board before applying for the position and she also hired the recruitment agency and interim director that in turn was very instrumental in recruiting her.

Additionally, although the institute serves students with special needs, many employees have expressed concerns that decisions are being made without sufficient understanding of the educational, behavioral, and developmental needs of the student population. Staff members frequently hear references to how matters are handled in the Netherlands, including statements such as "this is how it is done in Holland."

While international experience can be valuable, Saba has its own legal, cultural, and educational context, and policies should be adapted accordingly rather than applied without consideration of local realities.

Concerns have also been raised regarding employment practices and consistency in decision-making. For example, employees have been informed that daily allowances will not be provided for upcoming work-related travel in September 2026. Staff have requested clarification regarding the legal basis and policy justification for this decision.

Some employees have also reported being told that, in the Netherlands, employees are generally allowed only three days before being called into a meeting regarding an absence. Such statements have created confusion regarding which employment laws and regulations are being applied and whether local labor requirements are being properly considered.

Several examples have led employees to perceive unequal treatment among staff members. These concerns include: Certain employees receiving additional compensation for taking on responsibilities without a corresponding increase in working hours.

Flexible work arrangements being approved for some employees while similar requests from others are scrutinized or denied. Requests for accommodations related to childcare responsibilities, including caring for children with special needs, not receiving the same level of consideration afforded to others.

A recently hired Behavioral Coach being permitted to change his job title based on personal preference and not qualifications or experience, while other employees transitioning into substantially different positions have reportedly not been granted the same opportunity.

There are also concerns regarding operational authority within the organization. The Behavioral Coach appears to have been granted significant influence over classroom operations and educational practices, often with limited input from other staff members who are directly responsible for delivering services.

Employees have expressed concern that proposed increases in student enrolment may place additional burdens on teaching and support staff without adequate planning, staffing, or resource allocation.

More broadly, many employees perceive a pattern in which greater flexibility, opportunities, and accommodations are extended to employees from the European Netherlands than to local employees or employees from other backgrounds. Whether intentional or not, these perceptions have negatively affected morale and trust within the organization.

Most concerning is the growing belief among staff that institutional decisions are increasingly being made based on the preferences and convenience of certain adults rather than on what is in the best interests of the children.

The institute exists to serve students with special needs, and many employees feel that this core mission has become secondary to internal politics, management preferences, and personal relationships.

Questions have also been raised regarding governance and conflicts of interest. The current director is scheduled to be on maternity leave from August 2026 through January 2027 and it has been indicated that her close friend and current active board member may assume a leadership role during that period.

Employees are concerned about the appearance of favouritism and the lack of independent oversight in these arrangements. No vacancy has been posted for the position of an interim director.

As a result of these issues, many employees have lost confidence in the organisation’s leadership and governance structure.There is a widespread perception that concerns are not being adequately investigated, that problematic decisions are being overlooked, and that certain employees are being treated unfairly without meaningful accountability.

The institute’s purpose should be centered on providing the highest quality support and education for children with special needs. Employees are increasingly asking fundamental questions: Who is ultimately accountable for the organization? What oversight mechanisms are in place? How are leadership positions being filled and evaluated? And most importantly, how can the institute return its focus to serving the children for whom it exists?

On Saba, the question of who actually oversees the governance of ministry funded foundations, including EC2 and similar organizations such as the Saba Reach Foundation, remains deeply unclear.

The OCW Inspectorate has repeatedly indicated that it does not intervene in labor relations or internal staff matters. The Public Entity Saba appears to have little to no authority over private foundations, even when those foundations are fully funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education.

Meanwhile, boards often operate without meaningful transparency or accountability, and in some cases demonstrate clear conflicts of interest or patterns of mismanagement. This creates a governance vacuum: no agency appears responsible for monitoring how these foundations function, how staff are treated, or whether vulnerable populations such as students requiring additional support or special needs services are being adequately protected.

When every institution points elsewhere, and no mechanism exists to address misconduct or structural failures, where can one turn?

Editor’s Note:

The author of this letter has requested anonymity. BES-Reporter has verified the identity of the author but has agreed not to publish the name.

The views and opinions expressed in this letter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of BES-Reporter, its editors, or its publishers. Publication of this letter is intended to contribute to public discussion on matters of governance, accountability, and public interest.