E between the end of the XX the century and beginning of the XXI the , fracture occurred in the history of the Italian Constitution, previously characterized by continuity: before one could say that, as in all major States, governments spend, bureaucracy remains; now the roles are reversed because governments have become stable and the ephemeral bureaucracy. Two laws, a government of center-left (1998), a government of the center-right (2002), first, terminated the mandate of serving officials, on the other hand, established that senior officials will be appointed for a period less than that of governments [2] [2] It should be noted that the 1998 reform, considering ... . Whereas previously the senior civil service was very sensitive to the political and legalistic, to this is to thank you from politics, thus weakened.
2
The said change is very important. It concerns the organization of power at the state summit and, therefore, the "material" constitution. It must be judged in the light of the Constitution "formal" of 1948. It amends an equilibrium established since the political unification (1861). It must be confronted with a model that has formed over a long period. He answers a political need to phase began in 1993 with the introduction of the electoral system. Therefore, it carries a judgment on current political events in Italy.
3
Here we will discuss the theme by illustrating first the regime of the senior civil service compared to the previous; then we will list the causes and effects of the new regime on the balance of relations between government and senior civil service; Then, we will broaden the perspective on the continuities and fractures that have marked the history of the senior civil service; Finally, we will verify the constitutionality of the new regime.
THE NEW REGIME OF HIGH COMPARED TO PREVIOUS
4
The new regime of senior officials is the result of two standards (1998 and 2002), the second being more radical than the first. They come from the same trend but are due to two different orientation governments. It should be considered separately.
5
In 1998-1999, it was first decided that came to an end the functions of serving officials, who were to be confirmed within ninety days [3] [3] This is an effect of Decree of the President of the Republic ... . second, the top 55 highest officials (secretaries-general of ministries and department heads) could be confirmed, dismissed, transferred or renewed within ninety days following the vote of confidence in government. Third, all management positions should be conferred term for a period of between two and seven years. Fourth, to 5% of the general manager and executive positions, ministers could appoint individuals selected outside.
6
In 2002, it was first decided to terminate the appointment of general officers (CEOs), whose positions are to be awarded "ex Novo" (from the same person or to others). Those leaders (division heads) are confirmed if they are not assigned to another person within ninety days. Second, the 55 highest leadership positions become vacant ninety days after the vote of confidence in government. Third, all management positions are to run for a maximum of three years for general managers and five years for the other. Fourth, 10% of general officer positions and 8% of executive positions can be attributed to people outside the administration.
7
Note that the first type of provision only applies in exceptional cases; he was at the arrival of the government of center-left (1996-2001) and the center-right (2002). The other provisions are permanent.
8
The only difference of some importance between the 1998-1999 Plan and 2002 is the fact that the first established a minimum period of 2 years, while the 2002 Plan acknowledges the appointments for the same monthly and semi-annual period.
9
To understand these standards and their innovative range, we must recall some aspects of the context. First, all the officials, since 1998, are subject to private law: they no longer have the status of public service. They are underpaid work contract. And contracts are independent functions. If the functions cease, the employment contract does not end. The official who loses his job remains for up to one year in charge of other functions. What happens at the end of the year, that is to say, if the employment relationship also ends, is not specified [4] [4] The 2002 regime has left in the sphere of law ... .
10
Second, the foregoing (1992-1993) had established a distinction between government and senior civil service, assigning to the first direction and control, and the second management. It was said then that the officials had specific tasks they had to be responsible. Ministers should establish objectives and guidelines by which they would evaluate the management by senior officials; they should therefore be free to move officials who have not achieved the goals or fulfill the guidelines. But all this did not involve any widespread end functions, nor the term of the position. Indeed, it would have sufficed to establish an assessment obligation and move senior officials who have not reached the goals or observed the instructions. The fact that the ministers did not set targets or given directives, or even performed controls, proves that the explanation does not hold.
No comments:
Post a Comment