Frequently asked questions
In 2020, a hidden and unprocessed side of the Apostolic Society’s past came to light. The society has seized the opportunity to pay attention to this part of its history, and to do justice to people who carry pain from their apostolic past through conversations (personal and in groups) and the release of an open statement with recognition.
The reporting centre is intended for those who need more than recognition or a meeting. Where the Apostolic Society is limited in possibilities, there are people who, based on their expertise, can help others to deal with the apostolic past. They can offer support with the diversity of requests for help and know what options are available. This approach is in line with our vision of compassion and human dignity.
In addition to their expertise, the people of the reporting centre/committee were asked for their independent position. This stems from their personal integrity and professionalism. They are paid by the Apostolic Society, but they function without holding substantive consultations with employees of the society. The agreements with the committee members, the secretary and the employee stipulate that they do their work under absolute confidentiality.
Incidentally, when asking the employee and the committee members, the explicit starting point was that they have no relationship whatsoever with the society. None of them are members of the Apostolic Society, nor do they have a past in it.
The Apostolic Society wants the best possible approach to those who come with a request for help and the best advice for a follow-up. That is why the reporting centre is formed by people with extensive expertise and a lot of experience in, among other things, determining damage in the field of health, communication aimed at recovery and the psychological processing of suffering.
The Apostolic Society is aware that the reporting centre regulations are sensitive to fraud, especially because processing can be done entirely in writing. Fraud via the Internet is very common. Having to mention the name of a local pastor raises a barrier against abuse of this reporting centre. The committee can simply check this with the society.
After registration, the reporting centre will ask for information that is necessary to complete the procedure. The purpose of the data processing is to be able to process the application, assess its authenticity, reach a decision and implement it.
The society needs a name and bank account number for the possible payment of financial compensation.
Until the advice is given to the Board, no substantive information is exchanged between the reporting centre and the society at any time. Should this be desirable at any time, permission will be requested from the applicant first. The final advice is only shared with the two mandated members of the Board after the applicant has given permission for it.
All personal data will be deleted or destroyed immediately when no longer needed.
An independent agency has conducted a PIA (Privacy Impact Analysis) with regard to compliance with the GDPR. The few minor points of attention that arose from this have been processed.
Furthermore, the agreements with the reporting centre employee and the secretary and the members of the committee stipulate that they perform their work in accordance with the rules of the GDPR.
Two Board members are mandated to make a decision on this advice based on the committee’s advice and to pay out any financial compensation. The applicant must give the committee permission to send the advice to the Board. In principle, the Board adopts the advice, unless there is a well-founded reason to deviate from it. For example, when the Board believes more financial compensation should be awarded than is recommended.