English - Respect for Curators

Belspo, the Federal Office for Science Management, intends to appoint as Curator of Rare Books a person who barely meets the requirements, in spite of the fact that a number of much better qualified candidates applied. Scandalised by how the hiring procedure was conducted and the outcome of the hiring procedure, already two candidates filed a petition at the Council of State to annul the decisions of the jury. I would like to call upon you to support this action morally and financially.

We consider the quashing of the jury decision a necessity, not only in our proper interest, but also in the public interest. The federal authorities have the obligation to fill positions with the very best people. The Royal Library of Belgium (KBR) has the duty to employ the very best curators to care for the printed heritage collections. If this is not the case, this victimizes everyone, the users of the collections as well as the visitors of exhibitions.

In 2020 the Curator of Rare Books of KBR retired. On 20 April 2020 a vacancy announcement, including a detailed profile of his successor, was published.

As an institution, KBR falls administratively under Belspo, the Federal Office for Science Management, which conducts the selection procedure.

Together with thirteen others, I took my chances because I believe that the most important rare book collection in the country would be served well with expertise, talent and commitment.

As set out in the law, five candidates at most may be selected for an interview. One of them was pronounced unfit for the position; the other four were ranked from 1 to 4.

Three candidates appealed the ranking. I am one of them. We think that the laureate’s profile fits the published vacancy the least of all:

A number of candidates, including myself who ranked after the laureate, present a much stronger candidacy on each of the above mentioned criteria. Therefore, the three candidates who ranked 2, 3 and 4 have filed a complaint.

The complaints were considered admissible by the jury, and all three candidates were invited to an appeal procedure. The composition of this jury was identical to the composition of the interview jury; furthermore, the candidates did not have the right to bring in a legal adviser. After the hearing, the jury decided to maintain the original ranking.

The candidates who called for appeal have to fight with unequal weapons. Belspo refused under false pretences to produce documents related to the hiring process. When Belspo was shown to have erred, it was already too late (see under ‘Docs’ the advice 2020–132 by the Commission for the access to and the re-use of administrative documents). The complainants had to prepare the appeal without recourse to all useful documents. And still, not all requested documents have been produced. Nor have the candidates been informed about further possibilities of appeal. On 12 January 2021 Belspo once again refused to give access to another crucial document, this time with another pretext. Once again, we will appeal against this decision.

Other candidates as well as myself have filed a complaint at the Federal Ombudsman. On 11 January 2021, the Federal Ombudsman declared two complaints admissible.

We call upon you to support us morally and financially. Send your expression of sympathy to support, and support us financially, if you are able, by making a transfer to this bank account (Argenta Bank, Belgium): Respect For Curators, BE52 9734 0046 2009 (BIC: ARSPBE22). All remittances will solely be used to help pay for the conduct of this case. We commit ourselves not to publish any name.