The supervisory responsibilities of the Kunsthal are executed by a Supervisory Board. Management and supervision relate to each other in accordance with the Supervisory Board Model as described in the Dutch Code Cultural Governance (2016). The Supervisory Board is responsible for the Kunsthal’s preservation and continuity and acts as the employer of the director/manager.
Within the framework of the yearly budget set by the Supervisory Board, the director is charged with the overall policy, strategy, programming, organisation of exhibitions, marketing and communication, education and fundraising/sponsoring. The business director is co-responsible for the overall policy and strategy and is also charged with governance and the general operational management (maintenance, security affairs, personnel, finances, catering and retail). In general, the Supervisory Board sees to it that the management and staff are able to adequately give shape to the Kunsthal‘s objectives, as periodically determined in close consultation between the Supervisory Board and the management. The Supervisory Board is responsible for approving the annual financial report.
The Supervisory Board met five times in 2018. The chairperson of the Supervisory Board and various supervisory board committees are regularly informed about the state of affairs by the management. The Supervisory Board discusses the plans developed by the organisation with respect to content and finances with the management. On a regular basis, the Kunsthal calls upon the expertise of individual board members.
The Kunsthal would like to thank Mazars accountancy for services rendered.
COMPOSITION OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD IN 2018
In 2018, the Supervisory board consisted of six members, including the chairperson. As a guideline for recommending new members, the Supervisory Board uses a profile containing the required expertise, abilities and other qualifications.
– Mr A.J.M. Schakenbos (1957), chairman-manager Vestia
– Mr V.S. Mentzel (1945), former staff photographer at NRC Handelsblad
– Mr S.P. Lubbers (1967), director Hollandia Groep
– Mrs B.E.M. Tetteroo (1969), member of the Supervisory Board at Achmea
– Mr D.J.A. Dokman (1971), CCO CX Company
– Mr P.J.M. Drion (1947), partner at Van Traa Advocaten N.V. (until 11/31/2018)
– Mrs B. Sabourian (1976), general counsel Nedspice Group (from 12/01/2018)
As a whole, the Supervisory Board has general and more specific competencies at its disposal that are vital for a museum. Examples of this are knowledge of the cultural sector, financial expertise, commercial expertise, technical/ICT expertise, an affinity with Rotterdam, a broad network in the worlds of business and government and experience in governing and organising non-profit institutions. The Supervisory Board therefore aims for diversity in its composition with regard to background, age, gender and competencies. Diversity is a specific point of attention for filling new vacancies.
The Supervisory Board works with a schedule of resignation to facilitate the circulation of its members as well as guaranteeing the continuity of supervision. The members of the Supervisory Board are appointed for a period of four years with the possibility of reappointment for another four years. The members of the Supervisory Board are not paid for their services. In 2018 Mr Drion stepped down and Mrs Sabourian succeeded him. Just like Mr Drion, she has a legal profile. In 2019, the Supervisory Board expects to appoint a successor for Mr Mentzel.
The Supervisory Board uses the Dutch Code Cultural Governance (2016) as a guideline for evaluating its activities and its collaboration with the director/manager. The principles and ‘best practices’ described in the code are applied. In September, prior to the board meeting, the external self-evaluation took place. It was conducted under the supervision of the Dutch National Register. Before the evaluation, members of the Supervisory Board and the director filled in a questionnaire that was meant to serve as input for the interview. A report highlighting some areas of improvement was made of the evaluation. It includes recommendations for recording the duties of the various commissions in charters/statutes, and making the board’s approach to supervision and the governance code a regular point of discussion during the meetings.