The latest report of the Court of Auditors on the budget of theINPGI, the body that manages the welfare and assistance of journalists, leaves no room for many doubts: last year the Institute lost 81,6 million with a big leap compared to the 51,6 of the previous year and the active of 7,3 in 2012. Since the crisis in the publishing industry does not suggest a rapid reversal of the trend, without drastic interventions the INPGI appears set for bankruptcy and the pensions of journalists are at risk.
How did we get to this point? and whose responsibility is it? While taking into account the economic difficulties of the publishing sector, the primary responsibility lies undoubtedly with the Board of Directors and in particular with its president Camporese who, until 12 months ago, denied the existence of any problem for the Institute and indeed accused those who, having read the financial statements, feared for the fate of the INPGI and called for immediate interventions. After all, the president and the council are a remnant of the real socialism that has characterized the single union of journalists for many years. Indeed 12 councilors out of 15 are elected by the FSNI, i.e. by the union, which is now little more than a self-referential corporate structure that mainly represents its leaders and its activists in the growing general disinterest of the real active journalists.
These are groups of people who aim at a trade union career rather than being a journalist always useful both for positions within the editorial offices and for the conquest of well-paid public or para-public positions. Thus, for example, that of president of INPGI which earns 320 euros a year is certainly one of the most popular. Mostly these are people who know little or nothing about economics, finance, and even less about pension systems that require an in-depth knowledge of actuarial mathematics.
At the point where the economic and financial situation of the Institute has reached, drastic and fair interventions are needed. And it does not seem credible that managing this phase of sacrifices is the same Council that led to the disaster or the same president who has not even felt the moral duty to cut his own salary so far. Therefore, the resignation of the entire Council is needed and above all a reform of governance with the reduction of the role of the union and the possibility of entrusting the leadership of the INPGI not to government commissioners, but to external subjects professionally expert in the sector.
This is an indispensable step especially since the recovery plan drawn up by Camporese & Co involves considerable sacrifices both for current and future retirees, as well as obviously for publishers in terms of increased contributions. A few numbers are enough to understand the seriousness of the situation: the imbalance between current benefits and current contributions was 102 million last year. The other compulsory services present an imbalance of over 12 million. The return on assets amounting to over 1,8 billion euros was relatively low, while overheads rose to almost 25 million. The hole could only be addressed with a fictitious capital gain realized with the transfer of buildings owned by INPGI to a special management fund in which the Institute holds shares.
In short, a financial engineering operation that eliminates the scary budget hole only on paper. In any case, it is advisable for everyone, even for non-experts on the subject, to read the clear report that the Court of Auditors has deposited in Parliament. Faced with the danger of the imminent financial crisis, the Council has drawn up a plan for drastic cuts in benefits which, if on the one hand it is inevitable, on the other, appear incomplete on certain choices and demagogic on others. In the first place Camporese wants to impose a solidarity contribution on existing pensioners. This is an unjustly punitive measure for those who have made use of the rules in force at the time and are not to blame for the current crisis in the system. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has already declared such a levy inadmissible several times. What's more, this is an estimated saving of 3 million a year, ie 30 million for ten years, out of the 900 million that the plan envisages having to recover over the decade.
Furthermore, loans to journalists are removed which, looking at the balance sheet, give an interesting return, and in any case higher than that of other jobs. On the other hand, little or nothing is being done to reduce management costs which, as mentioned, are close to 25 million and appear truly out of line as the Court of Auditors itself points out. The INPGI is in very serious difficulty. The attempt to put a patch on it without previously reviewing the structure of the Institute and its ties with this false single union of journalists must be rejected precisely because one can no longer have confidence in those who brought the situation to this point, without having the courage to intervene, and indeed attempting dubious financial speculation on the assets of the institution which, on the other hand, is still a precious asset on which one can count for a true rebirth.
