JRC Editorial Review Board
Ispra, 25th
October 2019
NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF
MR V. ŠUCHA - DIRECTOR GENERAL of the JRC
Subject: JRC Editorial
Review Board
Dear Mr Šucha,
R&D Ispra has read with attention
the "Proposal on Terms of Reference for JRC Editorial Review Board".
The stated aim of this board is the review of c. 3,000 manuscripts every year
to ensure quality and integrity of deliverables in a competent, reliable and
harmonised way for the entire JRC.
R&D Ispra, since ever, is focused
on ensuring that newly implemented practices guarantee the most efficient
allocation of resources to the benefit of the JRC's mission to perform high
quality scientific work in support of EU policy.
Following an internal review of the
proposal R&D Ispra feels therefore obliged to transmit its very serious
concerns regarding both the conception of the JERB and its currently outlined
ToR.
Firstly, whilst agreeing that the JRC must
ensure the highest quality for its publications, we are not convinced that the need
for such an Editorial board has been demonstrated. The ‘scientific excellence’
of the JRC has been documented and validated in the bibliometric analysis of
the world’s leading science institutions. Is there any evidence to the
contrary, justifying such an additional reviewing procedure?
We are also concerned that the foreseen
structure (a full-time Editor-in-chief, 9
members representing each directorate, as well
as 100 reviewers) is overwhelming, and incompatible with resource restrictions
throughout the JRC. It is also very unwise to introduce such a huge endeavour before
knowing the precise impact of Brexit on future allocation of resources. Additionally,
this new structure would lead to significant delays in the publication of JRC's
scientific and policy related output.
While some aspects of the
ToR aim to help ensuring quality of manuscript, Pubsy already contains a process
for review that may be improved - if truly needed - without creating a parallel
redundant system.
Finally, included in the ToR it is stated that the JERB is to
judge whether the manuscript addresses a topical policy issue and/or contains a
possible political sensitivity. These are surely questions for the
management to consider during the work programme planning and execution, not at
the end of the process when the work is done and a manuscript already prepared,
possibly with the input of other stakeholders and DGs. The middle and senior
management already approve manuscripts for publication in Pubsy and this
responsibility must remain with them.
We therefore request that the implementation of the JERB be suspended until the concerns above
have been fully addressed and an in-depth cost/benefit analysis has been
carried out.
Yours
faithfully,
Gianfranco
Selvagio
President,
R&D Ispra
|
Robert
Kenny
Political
Secretary, R&D Ispra
|
Cc: C.
Vitcheva, D. Al Khudhairy
The 2014 Reform - “Big savings” at the expense of the staff
The 2014 Reform
This report of the Court of Auditors confirms in all respects the critical analyses that R&D and the Common Front of trade unions have defended throughout the process of adopting the Reform:
“Big savings” at the expense of the staff
R&D welcomes the audit work carried out by the Court of Auditors on the consequences of the 2014 reform for the staff of the European Commission and underlines the scope of the analyses and conclusions, which tie in with our statements and positions.
The situation is serious and worrying. More than ever, it is necessary to mobilize in order to defend the European civil service. R&D urges the new Commission to realise the need to act as soon as possible in the face of a critical and deleterious situation.
read
More Catholic than the Pope!
The 2014 reform has brought substantial savings to the European budget (€ 4.2 billion over the 2014-2020 period), with staff reductions of 5%, freeze on salaries and pensions and a revision of the Staff Regulations. The Court of Auditors recognises that these savings go beyond the amounts initially agreed: 55% more savings compared to what has been “required” by the Staff Members! In the long term, they will increase further due to changes in the retirement age, the career structure, the blocking of careers of administrators and the peril on our pension scheme.
At the time, despite its commitments, the Commission proved incapable of restraining the eagerness of the Member States to go beyond its reform proposals and, during the negotiations, under the pretext of always saving more money, the bidding at the expense of the staff has begun.
The emptiness of the Commission's promises to defend its proposal …
As in the even more disastrous Reform 2004, the report of the Court of Auditors once again demonstrates the emptiness of the promises of the Commission to control the procedure of adoption of the statutory amendments through a "credible and limited" proposal that it solemnly undertakes to defend before the Council and the EP so that it is not made worse, or even to withdraw it if it were distorted!
Don't fool yourselves: there are no tiny reforms, limited reforms or surgical reforms!
The results of the last two Reforms show that the Commission has neither the genuine will nor the political capacity to master the adoption process of a Staff Regulations reform. And its proposal systemically comes out diverted and aggravated by Member States increasingly greedy for savings, especially when those can be made at the expense of the staff of the institutions, all categories combined, that they stigmatize as much as they envy!
This is confirmed by the Commission's replies published in the above mentioned report. In particular, the Commission acknowledges that it cannot make an impact assessment prior to submitting a proposal to amend the Staff Regulations and that it has no control over the reform procedure, by confirming that it is entirely in the hands of the co-legislators.
In these circumstances, R&D hopes that from now on everyone has finally understood that it is irresponsible to engage in "tiny reform" proposals aiming at "surgical and controlled" modifications of our Staff Regulations only limited to the aspects that would be covered by the proposal. This is giving a stick to be beaten with.
The negotiations notably with the Council resemble more a “social butchery” than a robotic microsurgery theatre!
Indeed, as confirmed by the case law, once a reform proposal is made, the Commission effectively loses control of the process; the co-legislators are in no way restrained by the original proposal and can modify it with the greed they are known for.
In particular, once the Commission makes the proposal, our Staff Regulations are in the hands of the co-legislators who are legally free to:
- not only make worse the proposal of the Commission in all aspects that are covered by it,
- but also add many other aspects that, as in 2014, are not covered by the original proposal,
- or even include measures that are expressly excluded by the Commission on the basis of a detailed motivation justifying their non-inclusion in the proposal.
In short, when the Commission decides to open the Staff Regulations for tiny reforms it knows perfectly well that it puts the finger in the infernal gear, which will certainly devour the finger, the hand and the arm ... of the staff!
Disastrous consequences
As the Court of Auditors confirms, the short-term vision of the Member States during the negotiation of the 2014 reform is disastrous as regards its consequences:
- ageing of the workforce (the average age of the staff is 48 years and increases by 6 months each year),
- reduced recruitment opportunities, and hence, reduced generational renewal (number of recruitments halved between 2013 and 2017),
- job insecurity with massive and increasing use of contract agents and long-term impact on the knowledge management and the business continuity,
- increasingly unfavourable conditions of employment, with the "burn out" but also the "bore-out",
- net and continuous decrease in the purchasing power since 2003, while other national civil services have seen their purchasing power corrected upwards, which is measured by the absence of certain nationalities in EPSO competitions,
- increased working hours and workload,
- decreased leave rights, in particular in the delegations of the European Union,
- blocked careers, compromised prospects for promotion, …
The final result: reduced attractiveness of our civil service!
All this, as the Commission acknowledges belatedly in its communication of “Shaping the Future of Europe: Attracting, Retaining and Developing the Best Talents to Work in the European Public Administration”(link), , has had the effect of reducing the attractiveness of the European Union as an employer at a time when it is already struggling to attract sufficient staff from a number of Member States. This results in long-lasting and significant geographical imbalances. To this end, the Alliance, of which R&D is a member, has supported this initiative to restore the attractiveness of the European civil service while making reservations and proposing solutions (link)
In addition, the increase in daily work pressure has created specific problems that could lead to burn-outs as well as harassment situations. The Court of Accounts also observes more and more absences due to sick leave.
Not to mention the retirement age of 66, which is among the highest in the EU.
As confirmed by the Court of Auditors, the Commission is less and less perceived as an organization that cares about the well-being of its staff!
And what about staff satisfaction? The Court of Auditors recognizes that the Commission is less and less perceived as an organization that cares about the well-being of its staff and that there are growing concerns about the workload.
Too much focused on petty accounting and financial aspects, the Commission refuses to detect and correct the negative effects of the successive reforms it has brought about with a false political naivety.
Increased politicization of the civil service
While the Commission is the guardian of our Staff Regulations, it nevertheless seems to want to further weaken the principles on which it is based. Thus, it instrumentalises it in favour of its growing politicization, notably in terms of recruitment and appointment, and this especially for the benefit of cabinet members, giving rise to critics from colleagues, supervisory bodies, other institutions, the press and citizens
It is time to open our eyes
R&D maintains its positions! R&D has denounced blatant situations of dissatisfaction and recurring problems (staff surveys, alarming situation in agencies ...), fight against harassment whose existence in the institution is, however, absolutely not recognized (almost no case detected and punished by the administration!), failure to take into account the opinion of the staff in the choice of a number of Directors General to impose open space (except for themselves, obviously)...
All this gives rise to a confidence crisis that must be ended by concrete and visible acts and not empty slogans in defending the indefensible.
So many files on the table that urgently require a new approach. It will be the action that R&D, on the basis of this report of the Court of Auditors justified by figures, will undertake with the new Commission. Whether it likes it or not.
Cristiano Sebastiani,
President
R&D AT YOUR SERVICE
Phone .: +39 0332 78 9645
Email: Rd.ispra@gmail.com
BECOME A MEMBER
Please fill in our online membership form: link
EPSO COMPETITIONS - Assessment Centre (EN) - Training session organized by R&D Brussels
ASSESSMENT CENTRE - TRAINING SESSIONS (EN) IN BRUSSELS
Oral Presentation and Interview
For the preparation of the second step of EPSO competitions, ASSESSMENT CENTRE, as well as the internal competitions, R&D and its team of trainers whose experience speaks for itself will offer preparatory sessions in English.
The training sessions will be held between 31 October and 5 December 2019 in Brussels. They cover the specificities of that phase of the competitions: oral presentation and interview.
ASSESSMENT CENTRE (EN)
Oral Presentation - Interview
Training in English
Date Time Training in English Trainer
31.10.2019 16:00-20:00 Oral presentation + Interview Anne Draime GS
21.11.2019 16:00-20:00 Oral presentation + Interview Anne Draime PS
05.12.2019 16:00-20:00 Oral presentation + Interview Anne Draime GS
TO REGISTER...
We invite you to register for the training sessions that interest you by sending a mail to: rd.ispra@gmail.com
Our trainings are FREE for R&D members, members of their family and those who wish to join us.
If you are not yet a member and wish to benefit from our trainings and other services, we will be glad to welcome you.
For this purpose please send us:
the completed and signed membership form http://www.rdispra.eu/p/become-member.html and a proof of payment of the membership fee R&D: rd.ispra@gmail.com.
Upon receipt of these documents we will be glad to register you for the courses.
We thank you for your confidence.
All registered participants will receive a confirmation !!
Transfer “IN” of pension rights: favourable judgment!
Transfer “IN” of pension rights – judgment of 15 May 2019 Tuerck v Commission
TRANSFER “IN” OF PENSION
RIGHTS:
Impact of the time elapsed
on the calculation of the period of pensionable service. The application of the
standard interest rate by the Commission may result in unlawful enrichment to
the detriment of the staff
On 15 May 2019 the Court confirmed the judgment of the General
Court of 5 December 2017 in the case of Tuerck v Commission (C-132/18 P) which clarified important aspects of the
transfer IN of pension rights acquired before entering the service of the
European Union.
R&D follows closely the developments of the case law in the field of
pension rights. This case, successfully defended by our lawyers, Mr Orlandi and
Mr Martin, was among the many which were discussed during the conference on
pension rights R&D organised in March 2019 (link).
The facts
The applicant requested the transfer of the capital value of
pension rights she had acquired prior to entering the service of the European
Union. Five years later, the German authority informed the PMO that the amount
of transferable capital corresponding to her acquired pension rights was
EUR 141 652.07.
PMO made an offer to the applicant, assessing the additional
pensionable years under the EU pension scheme at 3 years, 8 months
and 29 days. She accepted.
The German authority transferred an updated capital sum of
EUR 146 714.33. The PMO deducted simple interest from that capital
sum, at 3.1% per year, in respect of the period between the date of the application
for a transfer and the date of the actual transfer, which is to say that it
deducted an amount of EUR 20 666.28 representing capital appreciation
between those dates. The PMO therefore took the view that the amount
representing the pension rights previously acquired by the applicant was
EUR 126 048.05, and reduced the additional years to 3 years and 4
months.
The judgment
On 5 December 2017 the General Court annulled the contested
decision, holding that under the Staff Regulations the PMO is not required to
‘update’ the transferred capital in all cases by applying the standard interest
rate.
In particular, Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII of the Staff
Regulations and Article 7(1) of the GIP do not allow the Commission to
make a calculation of the additional pensionable years on the basis of an
amount lower than that which was available at the time of the registration of
the transfer request and which was communicated to the PMO by the national
authority.
According to the Court, to permit the Commission to make a
deduction, to the advantage of the Union budget, from the capital representing
the pension rights acquired by the applicant as at the date of registration of
the application for a transfer, would lead to an unjustified appropriation by
that institution of a portion of the national pension rights converted into a
cash sum for the purposes of the transfer, which rights belong to the official
under the case-law, and hence, to an unlawful enrichment of the Union.
On 15 May 2019 the Court fully upheld the judgment of the General
Court, holding that a situation of unjust enrichment would arise if the actual
amount of the appreciation of the pension rights acquired by a given official
is lower than the amount resulting from the application of the standard
interest rate of 3.1% intended by the Commission.
It confirmed that it is only where the competent national or
international body is unable to supply the value of the pension rights as at
the date of registration of the application that simple interest at the rate of
3.1% can be deducted from the updated capital actually transferred to the
Commission.
“Parachuting” of Cabinet members at the end of the College’s mandate
Brussels, 19 February 2019
Note to the attention of Ms Clara Martinez, Head of Cabinet of President Juncker
and Mr Martin Selmayr, Secretary-General of the Commission
Subject: “Parachuting” of Cabinet members at the end of the College’s mandate
It was with great satisfaction that we read the statements of Mr Selmayr and Mr Italianer made during the meeting of the Heads of Cabi¬nets of 30 January 2017
Indeed, it was confirmed that:
“Shall not be allowed:
• the appointment of Cabinet members to management posts in the Directorate-General operating under their portfolio and placed under their direct supervision,
• as well as appointments of Cabinet members in a Directorate-General to obtain promotion and reinstatement in a Cabi¬net as soon as this promotion is obtained.”
In support of these instructions it was indicated that:
“These practices are demotivating for the rest of the staff who are not promoted with the same speed as the cabinet members”.
This was the clear position and instructions we had demanded for a very long time.
Nevertheless, we have noted that it was necessary to avoid at any price any perception that they were intended to make easier the cross-parachuting between cabinets, which was also inacceptable.
Furthermore, we have noted with regret that those instructions seemed to become less strict over time, omitting the members of the cabinets of the President and the Vice Presidents due to their horizontal responsibilities.
R&D reminds that it has always opposed the parachuting of Cabinet members at the end of the College’s mandate and has underli¬ned the serious consequences for the image and the credibility of our institution and its appointment procedures as well as for the motivation of the staff.
In this connection it is undeniable that Barroso Commission overstepped all limits (see our dossier on this topic).
We must end once and for all the parachuting and the easy establishment of Cabinet members!
R&D has always demanded the introduction of clear rules forbidding, among others, the nomination of cabinet members
Likewise, R&D has denounced the detestable practice of the “Geyser-parachuting”, namely the appointment of a cabinet member to a management position in a Directorate-General followed by an immediate reinstatement in a cabinet.
For a very long time the staff has witnessed with deep disappointment, not to say with a real disgust, such practices, acrobatic and delirious adjustment of organisational charts aiming at facilitating the safe landing of a designated parachutist … often with mimicry efforts within the framework of “the exchange of services” between cabinets …
In particular, all too often the “external” procedures organized under Article 29(2)* of the Staff Regulations are used for the benefit of “internal-external” candidates assigned to a cabinet, who are not eligible in the internal phase for the purpose of appointing TA 2c) or of appointing/promoting civil servant colleagues with the rise of several grades.
For R&D there has never been a question to cast doubt on the merits of our cabinet colleagues but, as the Ombudsman underlined, above all to defend the independence of the administration against political pressure.
The very clear stand taken by the European Ombudsman and the President of CONT …
As the European Ombudsman underlined, the problem goes beyond the mere protection of the interests of our staff:
“… it is urgent to avoid the politicization of our civil service, reassure citizens of its ability to defend the general interest and independence of political pressure and also to defend the legitimate career expectations of our staff as well as the transpa-rency and credibility of our appointment procedures”
As Ms Grässle, president of CONT, rightly pointed out:
“(...) The big losers of these "parachuting" practices will therefore be the “normal” career civil servants with no political proximity (...) This is unfortunately true in the Commission, but also in the Parliament, whose talent to promote certain can-didates to the detriment of rest of the civil service is no longer to prove. These practices lead to increasing frustration within the bureaucracy, which feels that careers depend more on arbitrariness than rationality.”
It is to be reminded that such practices discredit our institution and fuel Eurosceptic and Europhobe sentiments, even more toxic on the eve of the European Parliament elections.
… the deafening silence of DG HR
Whenever we have asked the administration to put an end to these slippages, denouncing the devastating effects of these practices on the credibility of our institution and the motivation of the staff, we have only received bureaucratic reactions denying any problem, ensuring that all appointment procedures had been put in place, implemented in the greatest transparency… that the rules in force were religiously res¬pected by letter and spirit … in short, that all was fine in the best of all worlds!
What is worse, we also witnessed with regret that DG HR is not only incapable of putting an end to those practices but also that, as was the case with the organisation of “internal competitions” at the end of the College’s mandate, invests its talents and energy in such damaging ma¬noeuvres.
For R&D, there has never been a question to cast doubt on the merits of the colleagues assigned to cabinets but to de-fend the independence and the credibility of our civil service, of our institution, its recruitment and appointment procedures and to take into account the devastating impact of such practices on the motivation of the rest of the staff.
It is completely understandable that every member of the College leaving our institution would like to thank his or her cabinet staff.
Nevertheless, as it was rightly pointed out in the statements mentioned above, one should not forget that those staff members have already been rewarded with quicker promotions as compared to the other staff.
Without forgetting the “tailor-made internal competitions” allowing the easy establishment of cabinet members, which DG HR, faithful to its mission of a linchpin, has already organised.
In any event, the gratitude of the college members towards their staff should in no way be expressed in “parachuting” or easy establishment, thus undermining the recruitment procedures of our institution and leading to further demotivation of the rest of the staff.
With 22 Commissioners who will probably not be part of the new College and our President who announced that he would not seek a second term, a real invasion of parachutists has already been organised!
Indeed, we learn that a number of posts which are vacant or are to become vacant ad hoc as well as new posts created through reorganisation have already been reserved for cabinet members.
What is worse, a number of appointments to management posts in the Directorate-General operating under the respective cabi¬net’s portfolio and placed under its direct supervision will be organised!
This is completely inacceptable and in flagrant contradiction to the statements mentioned above.
In light of the above, in view of your current responsibilities as the new Head of Cabinet of the President and the new Secretary-General, we ask you to take the necessary steps and give clear instructions to DG HR to put an end to the ongoing administrative manoeuvres aiming at deploying a whole range of parachuting appointments.
Cristiano Sebastiani
President
Copy:
Mr J.-C. Juncker - President
The Members of the College
Ms E. O’Reilly – European Ombudsman
Ms I. Souka, Mr H. Post – DG HR
Mr C. Roques, Mr L. Duluc - DG HR
The Staff
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment