Dear All,
This e-mail to update you about the situation with Daniëlle Jansen I talked to you about during the EUPHA conference.
There is no reaction from Daniëlle as far as the proposed meeting to discuss her complaint (lodged by Menno = Sijmen Reijneveld, the head of our department) is concerned. Seeing her deportment during the conference, I had not really expected her to. Below a short overview of her conduct during the conference.
– I was completely kept out of planning the programme, workshops or annual meeting. This is rather strange and even suspect as these activities had to be planned quite a long time before the complaint I told you about was filed. It suggests even more strongly that Daniëlle is aiming to remove me from vice-presidency for some time, probably supported in this by Menno – he tried repeatedly to convince me that after retirement I should step down (reminding me of the fact that no recompense was possible after that).
– no greeting and completely ignoring of not only myself but also Els Maeckelberghe (my wife), which I personally think is extremely rude;
– during the annual meeting I was not mentioned as vice-president at all – not on the slides and not in her presentation of plans now and in the future. Also she introduced (who I think is) the new vice-president of Section PH Economics Diana Sonntag as someone she planned to create a working group with – Diana gave a presentation about this. Again without discussing this with me. Dineke was present at the meeting, so she can corroborate this.
– at the ISC meeting Daniëlle said ‘I went to all the workshops I organised‘. However, she also went to the workshop I organised (with the section Injury Prevention: Traffic Injuries) and the one I had initiated and partly organised with the Imperial group (Michael Rigby and Mitch Blair) about MOCHA.
Her workshop on Saturday was cancelled.
Daniëlle left the conference Saturday morning and did not contact me about the evaluation session the afternoon, nor did she tell Floris that I could or would (perhaps) represent section CAPH.
In short, the possibility of us working together in EUPHA is non-existent. If needed I can give you more details about what has occurred these last weeks at my UMCG department, but suffice it to say that in my opinion the behaviour of Daniëlle is not compatible with what we strive for within the EUPHA: trustworthiness, integrity and common decency. This apart from the overall sense of friendship that – in my view – is characteristic of all people involved in EUPHA.
It is therefore that I propose Daniëlle to be removed as president of CAPH. Unless of course you have other suggestions, I will then for the time being take over as (interim) president.
Preferably, Daniëlle should be asked to take the honourable way out and voluntarily step down. Otherwise, the members will have to be asked, but that would mean I would have to inform them about the reasons behind this. I do not think this is good for our section or even the EUPHA as an organisation.
Another option would be to ask the members of the section council if they agree. I have looked at the section rules, but as far as I can determine there is no provision for these kind of problems – perhaps there should be.
As soon as a replacement is found I will step down as president and (possibly) resume my role as vice-president again.
Looking forward to your reaction and with my heartfelt apologies for troubling you with these problems,
warm regards
Auke Wiegersma