“Parachuting” of cabinet members at the end of the College’s mandate and the composition of new cabinets

1. Reminder of the facts

R&D has consistently condemned (https://renouveau-democratie.eu/parachuting/ ) the serious consequences of “parachuting” for both the reputation and credibility of our institution and its appointment procedures, as well as for the staff motivation. We are very grateful for the support shown by so many colleagues congratulating us on our efforts and urged us to keep up the good work.

In the past, the following practices have systematically taken place and impacted the senior and middle management in the Commission at the end of each College’s mandate

• – The “parachuting” of cabinet members into management positions, particularly within the Directorate-General under their portfolio.
• – The “geyser-parachuting”, whereby a cabinet member is appointed to a management position within a Directorate-General and then immediately reintegrated into a cabinet;
• – The “External-internal” “kangaroo” recruitment procedures, as outlined in Article 29.2 of the Staff Regulations, benefi­ting “internal/external” candidates serving in a Cabinet who would not be eligible in an internal phase, aiming at appointment/ establishment of temporary staff under Art 2(c) CEOS or the promotion/appointment of officials with significant “grade jumping”.
• This “exceptional” procedure involves the publication of an external call for applications, open to all European citizens, in order to select a candidate with highly specialised skills that are not available within the institution, sometimes leading to the “surprise” of finding, when filling the post, that the best “external-internal”’ candidate was already in the Berlaymont … as a member of the cabinet supervising the Directorate-General to which he was finally appointed … whereas he would not have been eligible for the post through an internal procedure.
• Not only do these practices allow external members to be appointed to grades that a colleague recruited through a competi­tion could normally only hope to achieve after decades of service and multiple promotions, but they also facilitate significant grade jumps for officials through external appointment procedures, even when their grade at the time of their secondment was considerably lower than that which they would have achieved within a cabinet as Temporary Staff under Art 2(c) of the CEOS.
• It should be noted that the (bad) example of these “kangaroo procedures” also concerned colleagues assigned to DGs and Services, who in turn were able to obtain senior management posts by jumping a very large number of grades, with the same serious demotivating effects on “regular staff”. This has been the case in several procedures organised in the recent past.
• – The “acrobatic” management of reorganisations and modification of organisation charts in order to clear the “runway” for the “soft landing” of the “parachutist” in question. This gives rise to more criticism from colleagues and external critics when the “parachuting” involves former members of the cabinet who were previously responsible for the Directorate General concer­ned (see point 5 below) .

2. The institution’s credibility and the integrity of the public service are at stake

With regard to the consequences of these practices, it is useful to recall the statements made by the European Ombudsman, which confirm that:

• “(…) there is an urgent need to avoid politicisation of our civil service, to reassure citizens about its ability to defend the general interest and its independence from political pressure, and to defend the legitimate expectations of our staff and the transparency and credibility of our appointment procedures.”

and by the former COCOBU Chair:

• “(…) The great losers of these parachuting practices are therefore officials with a “normal” career without political proximity (…). These practices cause frustration among staff who believe that their career depends more on arbitrariness than on rationality”.

3. In order properly address these very serious concerns, there are some reasonable instructions adopted in the past, which we ask the Commission to apply in current and planned appointment procedures, and to confirm that they will also apply to the career management of members of the new College’s cabinets

Since the Juncker Commission took office, we have stressed the need to avoid the intolerable abuses reported at the end of the Bar­roso Commission.

In this context, we have been pleased to finally see that the problems we pointed out have finally been recognised as well-founded and to take note of the following instructions:

“Shall not be allowed :

• ·  “the appointment of Cabinet members to management positions in the Directorate(s)-General operating under their port­folios and placed under their direct supervision;
• ·  “as well as appointments of Cabinet members in a Directorate-General promotion and in a Cabinet as soon as this pro­motion is obtained.”

In support of these instructions, it was confirmed that “these practices are demotivating for the rest of the staff who don’t get promoted as fast as the Cabinet members.“ ¹

However, we subsequently noted that they were not always followed to the letter. The controversy surrounding the appointment of the former Secretary-General, which we denounced ( Parachuting – Renouveau & Démocratie ), had caused the Juncker Commission to lose all credibility regarding the manage­ment of the appointment procedures for former cabinet members.

A present, as part of the management of the end of the Commission’s mandate we have appreciated the control exercised so far by the General Secretariat and the Cabinet of our President, which has so far avoided the flood of parachuting that has characterised many other Colleges at the end of their term of office.

We truly hope that this represents a genuine change of approach, turning the page on the excesses of the past.

However, many colleagues, invited us not to be naive sharing with us their conviction that things will never change and that it is only a matter of timing and that many of the ongoing procedures will allow lot of “parachuting”.

Indeed, a firm stance from the Commission is necessary, especially as the above-mentioned instructions have not been fol­lowed in some recent appointments.

In this respect, so many colleagues have drawn our attention to the fact that it is particularly regrettable that this has al­ready occurred within the DG HR, with the latest case involving the appointment of a new Principal Adviser to DG HR by ex­ternal procedure…(a two-step procedure ?)

4. On the one hand, this is in no way an attempt to make sweeping generalisations or to question the merits of our Cabinet col­leagues and their legitimate career expectations

In condemning these practices firmly and accurately, we have always refrained from making sweeping generalisations. 

It is only a question of the consequences of such practices and of simply acknowledging their disastrous effects on staff motivation, without in any way calling into question the merits of the colleagues concerned that which, in the last abovementioned case, we were able to directly appreciate throughout his mandate.

First and foremost, we have strongly supported Cabinet members who approached us to report experiencing intolerable behaviour and/or being forced to work under unacceptable conditions.

We are also fully aware that the practices we denounce do not concern our AST, AST-SC colleagues, who often work in very chal­lenging conditions and should not be associated with these issues.

We also acknowledge the attitude of AD officials as well who, recognising that they may have benefited from faster promotions, calm­ly accept reinstatement under “normal” conditions and express their disapproval of such practices.

In this respect, it should not be forgotten that cabinets AD colleagues already enjoy a fast career rate 250% higher than the rest of the staff.

5. On the other hand, R&D has always accompanied its critical analyses with concrete proposals to prevent the mistakes identified from being made again and again and has always been pleased to acknowledge the improvements introduced and the good practices applied, especially when our proposals have been duly taken into account

5.1 Good practice to be commended in the organisation of internal competitions.

In the past ( Internal competitions – R&D always at your side! – Renouveau & Démocratie ) we had to strongly criticise that in order to guarantee the appointment of temporary staff assigned to the Commissioners’ cabinets and only at the end of the mandate of the College, our administration had concocted internal competitions not guaranteeing a real equality of treatment among the candidates.

And we had reiterated that the much-needed internal competitions had to be designed to meet the ever more legitimate expectations of redressing the damage done to post-2004 and 2014 hiring of civil servants and to offer career prospects to contract agents rather than only aiming at the end of the college at ensuring the ‘easy’ appointment of the temporary staff of the cabinets, at that to very high grades, that the “normal staff” can hope to achieve after several promotions and many many years of career.

We are glad to acknowledge that even if there is still work to be done especially on the design of the exams, thanks to the tireless work of our representatives at COPAR joint committee, our requests have been heard and internal competitions are finally become an integral part of our institution’s personnel policy, are organised in several grades, on a regular basis and not just at the end of the College.

And we are particularly pleased that DG HR has finally accepted our request to organise internal competitions for the benefit of our AST-SC colleagues, enabling them to access the AST career ( All we are saying… is give AST-SCs a chance! – Renouveau & Démocratie  ).

5.2 Good practice to be commended in the composition of cabinets within the new College.

Concerning the composition of the cabinets, we constantly pointed out that the practice of composing cabinets with many external members made the relations with the DGs and Services more difficult and often unnecessarily conflictual because these colleagues were not able to directly grasp the complexity of the functioning of our institution.

Not forgetting that it was only natural that, at the end of their mandate, they should try at all costs to secure their access to our civil service, often in management positions, using the above-mentioned procedures and practices. Often bringing to their new service their lack of understanding of how our institution works and all the serious difficulties that this creates for the colleagues under their responsibility.

In this respect, we warmly welcome the decisions made by several designated Members of the new College to appoint experienced col­leagues to their cabinets and to entrust their management, as Heads of Cabinet and Deputy Heads of Cabinet, to colleagues who are already members of the institution’s management, particularly its senior management.

Such measures will promote more effective interaction with the services and mitigate the risk of resorting to the above­mentioned “parachuting”-establishment practices at the end of the mandate.

Conclusion

We call on the Commission to confirm or even reinforce the abovementioned instructions recalled under point 3 above, into current and planned appoint­ment procedures and to confirm that they will be applicable to the members of the cabinets of the new College

This will also enable colleagues considering such secondments to make informed decisions.

” Culture of Trust” …

Indeed, the Culture of Trust championed by the Commission, which R&D strongly supports, requires not only avoiding a renewed wave of “parachuting” at the end of the College’s mandate but also encouraging positive practices and setting clear instructions for the com­position of new cabinets.

…” Leading by example”: ‘An ounce of example is worth a hundredweight of words” ²

Putting an end to these practices of the past and establishing clear guidelines for the management of staff seconded to cabinets is the best response to public scepticism about the EU institutions’ willingness to implement genuine changes in their practices.

By setting clear instructions and avoiding all questionable practices, our institution can also set a good example for other institutions that are often overly critical of the Commission, but do not always lead by example.

Cristiano Sebastiani

President

—————————————-

¹ See minutes of the College meeting of 30 January 2017

² St Francis de Sales