Temporary truce in staff reform battle

Date: 30/07/1998

Tension is set to rise again as the Commission considers its options this autumn. Rory Watson reports

NEVER before has the European Commission conducted such an exhaustive bout of self-analysis.

But the question which some of those most closely involved in the process are now beginning to ask is whether the outcome will match the effort invested. Will it be a question of plus ça change, with a little tinkering at the margins of working practices largely unamended over the past four decades, or will there be significant qualitative differences?

Already the prospect of change and the way it should be prepared has led to a one-day strike by two-thirds of the staff at the end of April. Since then, tensions have been largely defused and, as the summer recess approaches, it has been in no one's interest to rock the boat by being dogmatic.

Indeed, despite bitter differences last week between the administration and staff unions over whether officials who went on strike after Easter should have a day's pay docked (such penalties have never been fully imposed in the past) both sides agreed to review the situation later in the year.

But the potential seeds of conflict are being sown and the mood could be less accommodating in the autumn.

Then, the 20 Commissioners will begin to be confronted with some difficult choices as they face options which affect almost all aspects of the institution's activities.

It is then that supporters of reform will accuse staff unions trying to protect their members' acquired rights of being cut off from the real world. Opponents of wide-ranging change will retort that it is being championed by Personnel Commissioner Erkki Liikanen to further his political career.

The response from Commissioners and staff unions alike will illustrate the degree of support for change and, if there is a conflict between the two groups, will indicate which holds the upper hand. There will be no shortage of ideas on the table.

One small group of senior officials and staff representatives, five from each side, under the chairmanship of the institution's former Secretary-General David Williamson, is considering ways of modernising the personnel policy.

Armed with the motto 'Rationalise Not Nationalise', it is entering the minefield of the staff statutes and examining how these should be updated to motivate and get the best out of individuals. The related questions of personal incentives and sanctions will come under scrutiny.

A second, far more ambitious exercise is being conducted under Williamson's successor as secretary-general, Carlo Trojan. This involves screening every aspect of the Commission's work, including its offices in the member states and the 120-plus delegations round the world.

It is a mammoth task and far more extensive than a similar screening project Trojan carried out a decade ago.

To implement it, he has assembled a dozen small teams, each of which has been instructed to focus on an average of three directorates-general. For some, this has meant up to 400 interviews as they question every A-grade official from director-general down to head of unit.

"This will be the most faithful and detailed photo we have ever had. We will see who is doing what, what their status is and where there is duplication or overlap," explains one senior official.

These initiatives follow on the heels of the Sound and Efficient Management (SEM) 2000 and Modernisation of Administration and Personnel Policy (MAP) 2000 programmes being carried out by Liikanen and the Directorate-General for personnel (DGIX).

Proposals are now being honed to move MAP 2000 into its second phase. After the initial emphasis on devolving many aspects of DGIX's administrative management work, such as responsibility for training, internal redeployment of officials and staff business trips, to each directorate-general, the priority now is to find ways to improve individual officials' efficiency and involvement in the Commission's day-to-day work.

The real question is the extent to which directors-general, who will inevitably be taking on more responsibilities, will be prepared to embrace the second round of MAP 2000 reforms or will insist that 'enough is enough'.

This flurry of activity is largely unseen by the outside world and takes up an inordinate amount of time.

The Williamson group, for instance, will meet for two days every week, for two months after the summer recess, in order to keep to the deadline for completing its work by the end of October.

The whole exercise is designed to establish a clear idea of 'tomorrow's Commission', of the challenges ahead and the deployment of resources needed to meet them.

Commission President Jacques Santer has indicated on several occasions that a spring-cleaning of the institution is one of the priority tasks he wants to complete before Santer and his colleagues leave office at the end of next year.

He would like to pass on to his successor the legacy of reform. But whether this would be a fait accompli or a blueprint for change on which the new Commission could draw is unclear.

One idea is that the proposed reforms should be presented to Santer's successor as soon as he or she is nominated in June.

This would allow several months for collaboration, followed perhaps by a jumbo encounter between present and future Commissioners, to consider the practical problems involved.

What will eventually emerge? Will there be some radical thinking and imaginative, though possibly painful decisions? Or will the upshot be more cosmetic, like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

At their Cardiff summit in June, EU leaders explicitly congratulated the Commission on its efforts so far to improve its efficiency and management: a sure sign that they are looking forward to further reforms.

But some champions of change fear that much of the sense of urgency present earlier in the year, particularly when national criticism of the Commission was more strident, has now dissipated among Commissioners and directors-general.

The Williamson group was created in response to staff unions' concern that they were being bypassed in a reform process which began with an informal paper drawn up by former Commission official Tony Caston. Now they are involved, albeit in a consultative role, and are being kept closely informed on the progress of Trojan's screening exercise.

There is no doubt the unions welcome, and are satisfied with the current arrangements.

But there is still a huge gap between involving them in the preparatory process and successfully implementing a medium to long-term programme.

Not surprisingly, there is a certain weariness and cynicism among many Commission staff at the various administrative reform exercises. Some see them as an attempt to reinvent the wheel, and resent the time spent in meetings, arguing that this could be put to better use in other ways.

Others, while respecting the diligent and conscientious way in which the programme is being carried out, wonder whether there will be sufficient political will at the top to implement what may turn out to be harsh conclusions.

"It is all very well devising an excellent instrument such as the screening exercise. It is another to use it," says one long-serving official.

There are also more practical considerations. Talk of change is unsettling. It takes the eye and mind off other tasks, as attention is devoted to the latest rumour and time is spent jockeying for position in support of, or opposition to particular moves.

Several directorates-general, particularly those handling external relations, have worked in this atmosphere for longer than they care to remember. As new structures are put in place, officials are redeployed and corridors are stacked high with tell-tale cardboard boxes, ready to move their owners' belongings to yet another location.

In the end, the restructuring of the Commission's various departments is likely to be less radical than some originally suggested.

"What would you do with the directors-general who would lose out? Never forget, you cannot reduce the number of A1s," explains one senior official ruefully, referring to the most senior ranking EU officials.

The overall stakes are huge and the outcome of the impending battle will decide the Commission's credibility for many years to come.

The shape of the final reform package will only become clear next year.

But the extent to which the unthinkable is articulated, and may even become thinkable, will begin to emerge this autumn.

Major feature on attempts to reform the European Commission.