Subject :  College decisions of 21 February concerning the senior management of our institution

As part of the frank and open dialogue with the staff representation that you have established, we would like to bring to your attention the following questions and requests for clarification regarding the recent appointments to senior management.

First of all, it is reassuring to note the absence of any external appointment: almost all of the colleagues who were appointed have consolidated experience within our institution and had already assumed important management responsibilities within a Directorate-General. Indeed, in the past, appointments by external procedure to the positions of Director-General of persons with no experience and internal knowledge of our institution had disastrous effects for the proper functioning of services, against the legitimate career expectations of our colleagues.

Secondly, we appreciated that, for the first time, Bulgarian and Cypriot colleagues were appointed to posts of major responsibility.

Thirdly, we take good note of the efforts made to achieve a better gender balance in senior management posts.

However, there are critical aspects that need to be clarified.
The decisions of February 21 have raised many questions that we are submitting to you to have your clarifications and answers.


1. Why were these appointments handled in the greatest secrecy?

 Indeed, as confirmed by numerous articles published in the press, as well as by information that was transmitted to us by colleagues including cabinet members, the whole pro¬cess behind these appointments would have been managed in the biggest secret, putting the members of the college and their cabinets before the fait accompli. We cannot be¬lieve that, as it was told by several journalists, despite your responsibilities, even you would have been involved only in the very last phase of the process. 

2. Why, to one exception, have these Director-General posts been filled without prior publication of a vacancy notice and therefore without a comparative analysis of potential candidates?

In your press statement on these appointments, you emphasized that "By appointing the best people to the right jobs, we are determined to use the window of opportunity that now opens for us to act according to our policy agenda"

Without doubting the merits of the newly appointed colleagues, it is nevertheless important to remember that, in view of our Staff Regulations and the basic principles of our public service, only the publication of a vacancy notice and the procedures therein related guarantees the comparative analysis of the merits of the candidates.

We want to make sure that this is not again a new approach that will systematically aim at not publishing the posts of Director-General, thus avoiding the usual selection procedures, advertising and possible jurisdictional control.

3. What are the exact details of the procedure that led to the appointment of the new Secretary-General?

With regard to the most important administrative appointment within our institution, it is imperative and urgent to ensure absolute clarity and to dispel all criticism, including statements reported in the press, suggesting that it was a real "coup d’état" carried out with a small group of "plotters" and with the complicit silence of others. In particular, according to this same press and its sources, the internal rules were "abused or deliberately violated". According to the same information, though he was not eligible for the post, Mr Selmayr would have been appointed Deputy Secretary-General following a selection procedure in the same day and then transferred to the post of Secretary General following the concomitant departure of Mr. Italianer who wished to retire.

Should this information be founded, you would agree with us that this is a completely new and quite surprising procedure that requires an explanation going beyond the usual clarifications previously transmitted by the spokesman's service, in reaction to press reports and questions from members of the European Parliament who have come to ask for a parliamentary committee of inquiry to shed light on this appointment.

4. Is it true that the three former Directors-General appointed to senior advisers were informed of the decision to discharge them from their responsibilities only on the eve of the college meeting, without any prior notice?
 
It would be unacceptable that these colleagues would have had to undergo such brutal and disrespectful treatment when, for years, they had accomplished their missions to the full satisfaction of our institution. No doubt that such procedure is likely to call into question these three colleagues’ respectability, which must therefore be restored without delay. 

Unum castigabis, centum emendabis ?  

Under these circumstances, your clarifications become all the more necessary as the press has already imagined that these decisions would actually come from the former Head of the President’s cabinet / new Secretary-General, who would have begun to shape the Commission to his idea “by dismissing general managers he did not like”, a very clear signal to create a climate of generalized fear that is absolutely unacceptable within our institution.

Clarifying the processes underlying these decisions, restoring the respectability of our colleagues, denying with the utmost firmness such interpretations, this is what we are urgently asking you, so can be confirmed the commitment to the values of our public service and can thus be protected the credibility of our institution and its appointment procedures.

To this end, we kindly ask for an answer on all the items raised, as soon as possible. At stake is the credibility of the institution, both internal and external.



CC:

Mr J-C Juncker, President
Ladies and Gentlemen College Members
Mr. M. Selmayr, Secretary General
Ms I. Souka, DG DGHR
Messrs. C. Roques, L. Duluc DG HR
Commission staff

We are glad to invite you to this Videoconference organised by R&D Bruxelles in collaboration with our lawyers, Mr Sebastien Orlandi and Mr Thomas Martin, regarding the transfer in of Pension Rights.

VC: IPR Room 11 Auditorium - Time: 12:30 – 14:30

Subject : Your successive positions against “parachuting” and your own “parachuting” on the post of Secretary General


The announcement of your appointment, as new Secretary-General, has prompted many reactions and questions from both colleagues and the outside world.

According to the information reported by the press, though you were not eligible for Deputy Secretary-General, you would have been, in the same day, appointed to this post following a selection procedure and then transferred to the post of Secretary-General following Mr. Italianer’s retirement on the same day again!

Should this information prove to be true, you would agree with us that this is an entirely new and quite surprising procedure, which requires explanations from Mr Oettinger — Commissioner in charge of Human Resources within our institution — whom we just asked.

Indeed, according to all observers, your appointment is the most spectacular case of “parachuting” of a cabinet member: for the first time in the history of our institution, a cabinet member becomes Secretary-General without ever having been responsible for a directorate-general or any other department. Moreover, this appointment as Secretary-General was made without any publication of the post.

In these circumstances, the ironic and sarcastic reactions of colleagues suggesting that we should not take seriously your commitments and your successive positions against “parachuting” would actually be founded!

Your statements against the hateful practice of “parachuting”

It must be remembered that, in January 2017, together with Mr Italianer, you stated that:

“Shall not be allowed”:
- “the appointment of Cabinet members to management positions in the Directorate-General operating under their portfolio and placed under their direct supervision.”

In support to these same instructions you stated that:

“These practices are demotivating for the rest of the staff who doesn’t get promoted as fast as the Cabinet members.”

And, always with Mr. Italianer, you have said that you intended to ensure the strict respect of these so well inspired instructions.

You will agree with us that, in accordance with your instructions, which we had supported with the greatest conviction — being obviously the only ones to have taken you seriously (please read our notes to you dated 6/2, 22/3, 16/5 and 2/6/2017) — we had the right to expect that you would never have tolerated the double appointment, in “flash sequence”, of a same cabinet member to the envied positions of Deputy Secretary General and Secretary General.

It is true that, subsequently, by your new declarations of October 2017, you had already seemed to drastically wish to reduce the scope of your initial declarations, thereby depriving them of any useful effect.

Only a few weeks ago, on 9 January 2018, we asked you to reconsider these “derogations” so that we could respond to the many questions raised at the time by staff members who had become both worried and suspicious.

We were therefore waiting for a clear answer from you: this answer seems to have been buried with your appointment.

In view of the above, please kindly let us submit to your attention, in your quality of Secretary General of the Commission, the following questions:

1. How to reconcile your exemplary declarations as Head of the cabinet of the President of the Commission, aimed at putting (finally) an end to the unjustifiable and deleterious practice of “parachuting”, with your own “parachuting” to the post of Deputy Secretary General and then Secretary General of our institution
2. In your new role as Secretary-General, starting in a few hours, could you please let us know, once and for all, the instructions you intend to enforce regarding “parachuting”?

Having a clear answer from you has become all the more urgent that “parachuting” has already been announced in several services.

Above all, we cannot forget that, as it was the case with the end of the mandate of the Barroso Commission, the administration (still faithful to its mission as a single linchpin), which you are now responsible of in fine, would apparently already be preparing new carefully designed appointment procedures …

In this regard, we wish to confirm that our actions never aimed at denying the merits of our colleagues in the cabinets, but only at defending the credibility of our institution and its appointment procedures, as well as taking into account the devastating effects of these practices on the motivation of the rest of the staff, effects that you have so well recalled in your successive declarations.

In the framework of the open and frank dialogue that we wish to establish with the new Secretary General of the Commission, and in accordance with the well-known practice of many of your predecessors, we would like to propose a meeting with the Staff Representation in order to address, among other things, all the aspects mentioned above, but also to allow you to present the priorities and the orientations in the accomplishment of your new functions.

Cristiano Sebastiani,
President


CC:
Mr J-C Juncker, President
Mr G. Oettinger, Commissioner in charge of Budget and Human Resources
Ladies and Gentlemen College Members
Ms I. Souka, DG DGHR
Messrs. C. Roques, L. Duluc DG HR
Commission staff





For references documents please read more...

Don't miss the opportunity to receive first-hand information on future JRC recruitment plans, and the true impact of Brexit on the EU Budget

The information that will be disclosed during the event is NOT available on Connected

1. 1. Host local antennas of policy DGs at the Ispra site, to build closer connections between policy and science, fostering a more efficient and effective collaboration;
2.  
3. 2. Free the JRC to focus on its scientific role to underpin policy-making, by entrusting routine tasks not compatible with the JRC strategy under the direct control of policy DGs. While in the JRC implementation review 2017^[1] some of these activities are flagged for possible outsourcing, we consider more reasonable and effective to attach them and their related staff directly to the relevant policy DG. In some cases, legal constraints make externalisation even impossible;
4.  
5. 3. Consider Ispra as the hosting site of future new structures, for instance, a new DG or entity for Security and Defense, enabling synergies with existing and future JRC activities in related areas;
6.  
7. 4. The Ispra site already hosts a very advanced crisis management infrastructure, and can provide increased resilience through decentralisation and geo-distribution of vital Commission services, thus guaranteeing business continuity in case of extreme events impeding their normal functioning at other major locations;
8.  
9. 5. Renaissance of the idea of applied science diplomacy, as formulated in the treaties, making the Ispra site the hub to promote an active partnership between Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

• A comprehensive and consistent use of "Offices" promises an increased efficiency and the reduction of the cost of support functions
• It  will encourage breaking down of silos, and facilitate staff mobility
• Investments aimed towards growing the Ispra site may help to reduce the strain caused by infrastructure shortages and high costs of rented buildings elsewhere
• Increased overall staffing levels at Ispra could have a positive budgetary impact, in consideration of the lower cost of living as compared to Brussels and Luxembourg
• Contractual Agents working for "Offices" may be offered contracts not limited to 6 years duration

 












Subject:    Your reply to our note of 12 October regarding the decision to strengthen the Code of Conduct for Commissioners and the rules and procedures for activity at the end of the term and management of conflicts of interest


We would like to thank you all most sincerely for your letter of 4 December in reply to our note of 12 October 2017.
We particularly appreciated the fact that you recognize our commitment to defend the reputation of our institution and we wish to confirm that all our efforts on this issue have been driven by our desire to contribute to ensuring that ─ as you mention in your answer ─ our institution adopts rules that meet the highest ethical standards.

In this context, we would also like to thank you for accepting our request to associate the staff representation with the ongoing discussions on the reform of this Code of Conduct by inviting the Central Staff Committee to contact the Secretariat General services responsible for this file.
It is with satisfaction that we note the importance you give to social dialogue , while too often the approach of our administration does not seem to be driven by the same desire for dialogue and the same respect for the staff.

In-depth reform of the Code of Conduct was, since the beginning of the Barroso and Kroes cases, the only option to put an end to all the malicious speculations from the opponents of the European Union. This is also what your staff has been asking you through the petition “Pas en notre nom” and what European citizens deserve and are entitled to expect from our institution.

Indeed, beyond the politically irresponsible and morally unacceptable decision of our former President Barroso and the ludicrous, if not pathetic, amnesia of former Commissioner Kroes, the need for irreproachable management of the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of former members of the College is of utmost urgency.

These requirements must cover both the period of fulfilment of their duties and that coming after the end of their term.

To be able to appreciate this imperative to reform the existing rules whose inadequacy and endogamous nature are no longer to be demonstrated, it is sufficient to note, as Transparency International indicates in its report entitled “When the EU politicians  become lobbyists ” (link), that more than 50% of commissioners join structures mentioned in the EU Lobbyist Registry after the exercise of their mandate.

Needless to point out the disastrous consequences of this “careerist migration” for the reputation and credibility of our institution while it must be and must also be perceived as the guarantor of the general interest of European citizens without ever giving in to the interests and pressures of lobbies of all kinds.

Taking also the opportunity to thank you for your recognition of the dedication and professionalism of our staff, and also on behalf of countless colleagues who have supported all our efforts on this issue, we wish to confirm our commitment to continue to work tirelessly to defend the credibility and reputation of our institution that we have chosen to serve with enthusiasm and pride.

Cristiano Sebastiani
         President


Copies: Members of the College
Mrs E. O’REILLY, European Ombudsman
Commission staff


For references documents read more...