When we look at the number of people leaving local governance, we see a discouraging trend. According to an investigation of the magazine Binnenlands Bestuur, 126 of 1144 aldermen in the Netherlands were forced to step down in 2019. Making 2019 the year with the highest number since 2004. The same trend can be seen with municipal secretaries. A municipal secretary used to be a lifetime appointment, yet now they often stay at their position for no more than 5 years.
This is why it is of the utmost importance to understand the different functions within local governance and how they can be best understood. This number of Bestuurskunde contains articles that offer more in depth analysis towards successful factors of aldermen and municipal secretaries.

The collaborative relationship between the appointed mayor and the non-political highest administrative official is a crucial one in Dutch local government. It aligns two different domains or spheres: the political, decision making domain on one hand, and the administrative, executive domain on the other. Since research points out that 25% of these collaborative relations fail, the need for insight in the factors that shape the relations and the success of it emerges. Non-successful collaboration between public top-officials usually results in financial, societal or personal costs or damage. In this research, 17 factors were indicated that influence the (perceived) collaborative success, divided in three levels: external factors, functional factors and personal factors. Within the success factors, several ‘critical’ factors were determined, without which a successful collaborative relationship never is possible. On the functional level the critical factors are trust, role convergence and shared understanding, and on the personal level consistency and integrity. Best guaranty for a successful collaborative relationship is when both actors adapt their roles to each other’s liking, reciprocally building trust and shared understanding by using open communication, while being consistent and maintaining their integrity.
Finally, officials are being called upon to open their doors, and share valuable experiences.

The authority of a municipal secretary has to be continuously earned. This is a complex task that demands highly developed personal qualities and attributes. According to an opinion poll, filled out by 120 active municipal secretaries, they believe that they meet these necessary standards. In this poll they were asked what they recognize as their most important sources of authority. The top three answers were, respectively; personal leadership, trust, embodied ethics. Other important factors were their roles as chief executive officer of local governance and/or first advisor. These roles are however no longer enough to establish authority within local governance. Authority and influence must be earned on a daily basis in vastly different spheres and among different social groups.

Boudewijn Marinussen feels right at home working in local governance. He has a deep understanding of the balancing act required by the municipal secretary due to his rich experience in local governance. Marinussen’s work as an entrusted person at the Association of Municipal Secretaries entails being a voice for his colleagues’ opinions. In this interview he will ponder the following questions: which sources of authority are essential? What causes a loss in authority, and can this loss be recommended? On the basis of Marinussen’s direct personal experience in local governance and his experience as an entrusted person, he concludes that in cases where authority is coming under pressure, too little is done to ensuring a fast recovery of authority. His advice would be to start earlier with conversations that quicken the healing process.

Research into successful alderman is scarce. Scientifically less is known about the perspective of residents and council members on (successful) aldermen. A recent study investigated the sources of legitimacy that successful aldermen draw on. In addition, the contribution of characteristics of local political leadership to successful alderman has been examined. Based on a survey of residents, councilors and aldermen, differences in opinions about aldermen, aspects and indicators of legitimacy and personal characteristics were uncovered. There are clear differences in judgment, indicators and personal characteristics that are considered important and another source on which the judgment is based. This provides interesting and new research material for public administration literature as well as for administrative practice. The view of residents learns us that the distance to aldermen must be reduced, more connection must be made, a more outside view must be taken and an addition to the management style of councilors with responsive qualities is required.

A key factor to a well-functioning ombudsman’s office is autonomy, which can also be derived from the public turmoil surrounding the appointment of Dutch Children’s ombudsman in 2016. Organization-wise, the Dutch Children’s ombudsman is embedded within an existing autonomous institution: the National ombudsman. This triggers the question to what extent such nested constructions can guarantee sufficient autonomy. Viewing the statutory and de facto autonomy of the Children’s ombudsman, we find that the autonomy of the Children’s ombudsman depends to a large extent on the position of the National ombudsman and on the relationship between the National ombudsman and the Children’s ombudsman. Our findings point out that it is necessary to determine and codify the degree of autonomy at the start of an ombudsman’s office.

Governmental IT-projects regularly make the news due to issues about the quality of end results, planning or costs. The Elias report, which is based upon a Parliamentary Inquiry, recommends to evaluate more and learn from the outcomes of these evaluations. However, the report does not give guidance on how to evaluate. The question thus remains: what constitutes a good evaluation of governmental ICT-projects, and what characteristics should be addresses in evaluation research. After careful study of various scientific disciplines, the researchers developed an extensive reference model, including additional suggestions for defining methods, the evaluation process, and criteria on how to evaluate an evaluation. After using this reference model in a content-analytical document analysis, it became clear that many evaluation reports are not being shared with other professionals or practitioners, that reports often lack a specifically formulated research question, and that conclusions and additional reflections are limited. There is room for considerable improvement in the evaluation of ICT-projects.

The number of boards in the public domain has risen sharply in recent decades and so has the number of reports containing guidelines for effective and good governance. The question, however, is what this flow of advice is based on and what we actually know about board capacity. In this paper, we discuss theoretical expectations on boards, recent developments in governance based inspection, and empirical research on this topic. All in all, it appears that relatively little empirical research is conducted into boards in the public domain. And the research that is available is as yet not very optimistic. Based on these observations, we conclude that it is necessary to re-examine the policy assumptions with regard to board capacity in the public domain.