R&D Vision for the future of the Ispra site: from "JRC Ispra" to "EC Ispra"
NOTE TO THE
ATTENTION OF MR G. OETTINGER
VICE-PRESIDENT
BUDGET & HUMAN RESOURCES
Subject: R&D Vision for the future of the
Ispra site: from "JRC Ispra" to "EC Ispra"
Dear Mr Oettinger,
First of all, we wish to express our great
appreciation for your visit to the Ispra site on 21st December. We
are confident that you will experience a very stimulating and welcoming working
environment.
We also wish to take this opportunity to exchange
with you our vision for the future of the Ispra site, which we outlined - a
year and a half ago - to your predecessor Ms Georgieva.
Towards a more streamlined JRC and a stronger
Ispra site
We are convinced that the Commission would greatly
benefit from a more intensive exploitation of the infrastructure and facilities
available at Ispra, and from increased investments in the site. Ispra hosts the
third largest Commission site, it is located at the very heart of Europe and it
is nearby major transport links. It offers great facilities and opportunities
such as, for instance, the European School of Varese and – very soon – a
conference centre able to host international meetings of up to 500 participants.
Due to its geographical position, the site offers itself as an ideal hub for
science diplomacy with focus on the Mediterranean and Danube regions, thus
offering new impulses to the EU integration process.
Our
vision for the future of the Ispra site comprises the following developments:
- 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. 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;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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.
The enabling factor: from "OIB and JRC site management" to OII (Office Infrastructure for Ispra)
In a
previous note sent on 26th May 2016 to VP Georgieva[2],
referring to the major JRC reorganisation that took place on 1st
July 2016, we already anticipated that "we consider the JRC
reorganisation as a first step setting the framework to be followed by further
moves towards a full integration of the Ispra site within the framework planned
for the whole Commission." In her reply[3],
VP Georgieva recognised the validity of the points raised by us, stating at the
same time that "the Director General of JRC decided that the best way
forward was to create a dedicated entity within JRC to ensure the
infrastructure governance for all JRC sites. This entity has been included in
the proposal for reorganisation of the JRC which has been adopted by the
College on 25 May 2016."
A second phase of this reorganisation will be
implemented on 1st January 2018, following a path that is consistent
with our initial proposal: all Ispra infrastructure and logistics services are
to be brought together under a single Department called "Site Management
Ispra".
We ask now for your political support to take the
final step: to review the 2015 evaluation of the JRC that led to the decision
of keeping infrastructure management under the responsibility of the JRC, and
merge this JRC Department (JRC.R.I) with "OIB Ispra" (which is
already in charge of Ispra social infrastructure), forming a unique Office for
Infrastructure, either as a new OII or as part of OIB, such that the Ispra site
is structured and functions as any other major Commission site.
A neutral management of the site infrastructure
guarantees harmonised services to any DG that wishes to host some staff at the
Ispra site.
Further
benefits deriving from our vision:
- 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
Conclusion
We understand that our strategic perspective for the
Ispra site would imply significant changes. We trust that you will find the
time for an in-depth analysis and reflection with your colleagues in the
College. We would also appreciate the possibility to further discuss our ideas
with you in more detail early next year.
Kind Regards,
Cristiano Sebastiani
President
R&D
|
Robert Kenny
Political Secretary, R&D Ispra
|
Cc: Mr Selmayr, Mr Navracsics, Mr Italianer, Ms Souka, Mr Å ucha, Ms
Rute, Ms Vitcheva
9 March 2018: Reply from Commissioners Oettinger and Navracsics
[1] See
Section 3.3, p.19: “the JRC does significantly
more data mapping than data analysis, i.e. less ‘making sense of data’ than
promised in the strategy. Data mapping is more a routine job and a science
organisation loses focus doing such work. If it is work under contract, then
there can be good reasons to hand it over to private providers.”
[3] See
annex 2
Code of Conduct for Commissioners and the rules and procedures for activity at the end of the term and management of conflicts of interest
Brussels, 11 December 2017
Note to Mr Jean-Claude Juncker
President of the European Commission
President of the European Commission
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...
5 December 2017: Is the JRC still able to maintain its scientific excellence?
Insights from the
"Implementation Review 2017"
"Implementation Review 2017"
Tuesday 5 December 2017, 13:00-14:00
Venue: Room 11- Auditorium (Bdg. 58c)
During the event, we'll try to answer the following questions:
- Is the new JRC structure understood by staff?
- Does the new JRC structure promote scientific excellence?
- Is the JRC allocating its resources in the best possible way, or is it leaving activities under-resourced so that they fade out through lack of decision?
- What is the minimum level of permanent staff needed to keep the JRC alive?
- Shall the JRC outsource requests for activity from partner DGs?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment