Dear Commissioners,

The numerous changes announced or carried out since you took office ought to have improved the way the services function, but in fact the Commission’s work continues to be profoundly destabilised, and the staff are suffering from increasingly acute demotivation.

The greatest concern has been caused by the project to reform the European Institutions. Back under the ‘Santer’ Commission, R&D was arguing for necessary and urgent reform to ensure that the dysfunctioning ceased. Unfortunately, the reform proposed by Mr Kinnock has proved to be dangerous, confused and demagogic. You recently gave your backing to this project, but without knowing the exact content, and even since you gave your approval, the Administration has continued to alter it, among other reasons, in order to take account of criticism from the Legal Service. To our profound regret, the project was conceived hastily and unprofessionally, and is now in the process of being finalised.

Staff insecurity, and therefore demotivation, continue to grow because of rumours – spread ever widely – of another game of musical chairs at a higher level for A1s and A2s.

R&D has frequently denounced the waste caused by keeping senior officials in the same jobs for too long, and thereby leading to the establishment of little kingdoms.

What is more, when you started in your new job, R&D gave a warm welcome to the idea of rotation among some of the most senior officials. But what is the point of a great upheaval 2½ years from the end of this Commission when we know perfectly well that the next Commission will probably have the same attitude? Do you realise that the work that has been done since you have been here has not been carried out properly? What stability do you think you can guarantee services in such a chaotic situation? How do you hope to keep our colleagues motivated?

R&D wants to know:

• If it is true that a new game of musical chairs is planned. Do we need to remind you that the last round took place 2½ years ago? Do you believe that such frequent and ill-thought out restructuring exercises enable services to demonstrate their ability to function?
• If changes will be restricted to the A1s and A2s who have remained more than 5-7 years in the same service (which would be ideal), or whether more of the higher grades will be concerned. In other words, is the game restricted entry, or will it be thrown open to everyone? And is there any chance of knowing how many players there will be?
• What criteria have been employed by the Commission to ensure that the new senior officials will have the skills required to carry out their new functions, given that recognition of merit is the basis of your reform.
• If these rotations will be carried out transparently. Do we need to remind you that a lack of transparency led to the downfall of the Santer Commission?
• What measures will be taken to ensure that the new teams (Commissioner/Director-General) will actually operate.

R&D is quite clear that, before moving on to the next round, your Commission should have made sure that vacant posts in the upper hierarchy had been filled as soon as possible and not left vacant – with no justification, and in circumstances that are very hard to explain – for excessively long periods of time. Can the Commission say how many A1 and A2 posts are in the organigram but are still unfilled, and for how long? And are there any valid justifications for these delays in the nomination procedures?

As it looks into its crystal ball (which has now turned red), R&D wonders with dismay whether the aim of these rotations is to get rid of certain senior officials (for example – by sheer chance – those who have criticised Mr Kinnock's reform), and to start recruiting externally. The new way of simultaneously publishing A1 posts internally (article 29.1) and externally (article 29.2) effectively allows in-house officials who do not have the two years’ seniority at grade A2 (and ‘pals’ outside) to apply. Not only does this procedure block the careers of colleagues who moved into civil service basic grades through competitions; it also opens the door to the nationalisation – and therefore the dismantling – of an independent European civil service.

To allow our crystal ball to return to its normal colour, could the Commission tell us how many candidates there were for the post of Assistant Director-General in DG SANCO, both internally (article 29.1) and externally (article 29.2)?

The Commission has often been criticised over nominations to managerial posts for failing to meet the competence criterion. If it continues to do so after declaring urbi et orbi that merit is now the sole selection criterion, it will hardly be surprising, Commissioners, if there is a further loss of credibility.

Yours sincerely,

For the Executive Committee
Franco Ianniello

Pour adhérer à R&D/To join R&D :
NOM/NAME :

Address adm.

envoyez ce talon à/send this stub to: Marina OGLE L 102 7/12
Pour avoir plus d’informations sur R&D/To receive more information on R&D :
Le secrétariat politique : O. PROFILI/C. SEBASTIANI/S.VINZEK-BERLINGIERI (55656/99239/64162)
CDR, à Sybren SINGELSMA (ARD 613, tél. 282.21.87)
CES, à Charles POTIER, 2 rue Ravenstein, 1000 Bruxelles (546.93.31)