Transparency of Social Organizations Act (Wtmo) should not be there.
In 2020, the Cabinet introduced a bill that seeks to combat unwanted foreign funding of nonprofit organizations (civil society organizations). Privacy First endorses the need to combat undermining the democratic rule of law, but believes the bill is inappropriate for this purpose.
Due to numerous objections from civil society, consideration of this bill has been stalled for years. In the new coalition agreement, it is stated that the treatment will continue. Since it has now been announced that the bill will be debated in plenary in the House of Representatives next week, Privacy First saw fit to send a fire letter to the committee responsible.
The bill (1) affects all civil society organizations (foundations and associations):
The proposal includes a new administration duty for all civil society organizations, which will impose an additional burden on those organizations without demonstrating that the duty contributes to the goal (combating undermining).
The proposal includes a general obligation to administer donors' personal data and a long-term retention obligation, which is risky for those donors (privacy, cybersecurity). An additional factor is that not all charities comply with the AVG correctly and personal data is already leaking out on a large scale and can be misused by criminals and other malicious parties.
The proposal will discourage volunteering for CSOs, now that only "members" will be allowed to volunteer without it qualifying as an "in-kind donation. In-kind donations must be administered and valued by CSOs, which will deter volunteers.
Furthermore, the proposal includes specific powers for the government directed against organizations deemed "suspicious," powers whose necessity has not been substantiated:
The mayor, the Openbaar Ministerie, the Minister of Justice, the Tax Office, DNB, AFM, Bureau of Financial Supervision, and a large number of other government agencies may request donor data from civil society organizations, without it being clear what connection there is between the governmental tasks of these agencies and donor data to be requested. The agency requesting the data may share the data with a large number of other agencies. Non-cooperation by the CSO may include board bans on directors. There is no rationale as to why the powers of the relevant government agencies would be insufficient under current regulations.
In a separate article, the Openbaar Ministerie is given the ability to impose far-reaching obligations on an undermining organization through the courts, when there is already a legal provision allowing the Openbaar Ministerie to ban and dissolve such an organization. Privacy First does not understand why the latter provision is not amended.
According to Privacy First, the specific powers do not meet the requirements of rule of law required of legislation by the AVG and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, among others.
Finally, the proposal includes an obligation for foundations to file their balance sheet and statement of income and expenses with the Trade Register. According to the current text, these documents can then be viewed by anyone, even though they may contain confidential information. Privacy First recommends amending the text of the proposed provision.
Privacy First is unpleasantly struck by the suggestion in the parliamentary papers that non-profit organizations are responsible for widespread undermining. It is high time that there is more appreciation for the activities of the many foundations and associations active in the Netherlands. Furthermore, it is essential that the data protection rights of donors and volunteers be respected.
If measures against undermining organizations were needed, they should not affect the regular nonprofit sector.
Interested parties can read Privacy First's full letter to the House of Representatives HERE (pdf).
(1) https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/wetsvoorstellen/detail?id=2020Z22508&dossier=35646
