the PA, the ghost of the Parva Domus and the mega director
The promulgation of the Delegated Decree 4 April 2022, n. 56, entitled “Provisions relating to the simplification of the structure of the Public Function Department, the Central Liaison Office OU and administrative procedures and activities”, offers the opportunity for some reflections on the last two and a half years of management of the Public Administration from part of the part of the person and of the DC, which, in the current compound, seems to be the only true director and actor, being the mere allies appearing unable to affect, even in the PA sector but not only. The level of collapse in health, justice and public finances is known, but not enough has yet been said about the state of discomfort in the public sector, subject to repeated interventions that have aggravated its functioning, both in the provision of user services, both in the treatment of its employees. Removed any doubt that the Secretary Tonnini, who has always been a fugitive, has given birth to any management idea of the PA (he is not capable of it), the absolute author of the disaster seems to be the current hyperactive Director of the Public Function, as he did his utmost without pause in drafting congressional resolutions and rambling rules, often revoked by the government itself. A quick overview of such a bad administrative work of the DGFP will help everyone to refresh their memory: • the infamous Circular 6/2020 of March 16, 2020 with which the DGFP decided what with a provision it was not possible to do: the 15% early deduction (then increased to 25% with Circular 8/2020) of the same member of state employees, in the absence of a law providing for this possibility; • to the competition notices, the case of that for the position of Manager of the Civil Status Office, in which the Director of the DGFP seems to have intervened on several occasions, regardless of obvious or supposed respect of interest, aroused particular sensation; • the preparation of new models of contracts for Executives, full of void and vexatious clauses, on which we have filed an interpellation whose answers have not been at all clarifying; • in the face of such a string of critical issues, the Secretary Il Tonnini, instead of distancing himself from the clumsy mega Director, praised his work on the occasion of the approval of the 2nd Requirement of the Enlarged Public Sector, going so far as to affirm that the latter it was the result of in-depth discussions with the managers of the operating units, departments and organizational actions of the Bodies and trade unions. It is a pity, however, that Executives and Unions have noted the total absence of consultation in the definition of the new Requirement, leaving the DGFP in absolute solitude and in a short-sighted way and detached from the operational reality of the Offices; • to regain credibility in the eyes of the Executives, the indefatigable Director of DGFP focused on training activities and quickly organized an exhilarating “performance evaluation course” whose usefulness has come to be talked about in local newspapers ; to mention the recent training meeting on “coaching and teambuilding”, with a mockery taste, given that the ability to motivate and team up are precisely among the missing skills of the current Director of the FDJP, who has also arrogated the right to confer on the Executives objectives on an annual basis, reserving their evaluation with the help of his staff, his goodness. Retracing the stages of a brilliant career, the proposals for bizarre mergers between essentials crown the work of the mega director, the only and inevitable effect of which will be that of publication thus implosion of publication. After the aggregation of the Executive Secretariat with the Institutional Office, after the attempted relocation of the CLO within the Tax Office, we now have the new UO “Public Procurement and Privacy”, which arises from the assembly of the Purchasing Office with the newborn UO of the Data Protection Officer (established by Delegated Decree of 19 July 2021, n.138), a merger that has aroused confusion and indignation inside and outside the PA for the evident new insanity of too much office whose manager should deal with matters different from each other. It goes without saying how complex and delicate the ambitions of privacy and public procurement are and their aggregation would not only be incorrect from a formal point of view, but would be impracticable from an operational point of view and bankruptcy, with the risk of enormous financial damage for the State (among other things, with an interpellation we tried to find out the now well-known “FFP2 mask case”, in which the DGFP stood out for embarrassing interventions in the newspapers, in which instead of clarifying the anomaly of that tender procedure , highlighted inexplicable interference by the State Congress and various procedures). effective change in the top management of the Public Administration (starting with the Director of the DGFP), involving, this time really, all public employees, so that they express their level of satisfaction with the activity carried out by this DGFP and formulate proposals for improvement which, to date , are completely absent.
cs Repubblica Futura