In autumn 2001, as it does every year, the Commission undertook the exercise of rotating Heads of Delegation for 2002, and other officials on Grades A, B and C.

There has been an unprecedented hold-up.

The Director-General of DG RELEX introduced as new selection system involving the setting up of a panel consisting of representatives of Directorates-General in the RELEX family, the Secretariat-General and DG ADMIN.

Initially, only a small number of candidates were invited to appear before the panel. So how did the selection take place? And what criteria were used?

Later on, and following interventions by certain Directors-General, the number of interviewees was increased, but the reasons for this two-stage ‘selection’ are still unknown as the eligibility criteria had already been well established.

R&D wonders how the Commission can ensure compliance with procedures that it has itself instituted and which are well known to staff, and how it applies the great principles of transparency, of which it is such a strong advocate in the context of the reform.

The panel has met for several weeks without the involvement of staff representatives. No public reports have been issued.

The interviews have been followed by obscure transactions, and a list has been drawn up. Does this list take account of assessments made by the panel?

R&D assumes that, in line with the rules commended for good management, an assessment sheet was produced for each candidate and signed by panel members. But have these sheets really been used when drawing up the panel’s proposals for the External Service Steering Committee (CDSE)?

The list was approved by the CDSE, but it has to be said that the results do not reflect the criteria that were set out, and in particular the judgements are not backed up. What is more, it would appear that an official is about to become a Head of Delegation although he does not currently occupy a middle management post. If this is true, it would be a glaring breach of procedures currently in force.

In this particular case, R&D believes that the reform is already up and running, with Directors-General feeling that they are able to manage staff careers without abiding by provisions in force, and violating all principles of transparency, merit and efficiency.

Furthermore, and although the exercise of de-concentration is deemed crucial and aspects of contractual and financial management are seen as being of the highest importance, the Directorate-General tasked of setting external aid up (AIDCO) has been blacklisted – Score: 0. The other (so-called objective) criteria have also been gleefully swept aside. So can we trust our decision-makers this time any more than we have over other aspects of the reform?

And last but not least, judging from the over-representation of a certain nationality that grew more acute as a result of this exercise, R&D is wondering whether ‘national preference’ might also be gaining ground in the Commission.

R&D does not think that bad habits are changing. The Commission URBI et ORBE proclaims fine principles that it systematically breaches at every opportunity.

Can we trust this Commission and its ‘Reform’?

The Executive Committee

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)