It is hard to believe one's eyes, but in the long (almost four dense pages) "Motion on the appointment of directors of companies owned by the State" approved in the Senate on June 20, 2013, the word transparency appears only once and not even in the commitments given to the government, but only in the consideration that, "the reform process started in recent years, despite having led to a rationalization of the management of companies controlled by the State, must be completed through further interventions aimed at increasing the transparency and quality of procedures of designation of the members of the administrative bodies of the same companies, also reinforcing the requisites of integrity and professionalism of the directors". Then, as they say, in parliamentary language, we "moved on to another" topic.
I leave to the interested reader the task of scrolling through both the long list of prohibitions, wishes and suggestions made for director appointments, and the meticulous recognition of what is meant by directors' integrity and professionalism requirements. Overall, the result is a seemingly "tight-knit" set of criteria for appointments, but in reality very murky, being made up of recommendations, procedures, paths and acts that cannot be traced back to principles of transparency and responsibility in the appointment of public administrators. In summary, the path identified is so full of general rules that are impossible to apply and verify, such as those that require the assessment of "authority" and "reputation in the reference markets" that make these criteria a pure literary genre that cannot hinder any nomination or re-name.
In this regard, I note that an obstacle course is being introduced which seems to have been made on purpose so as not to hinder the re-appointment of some at the top of the big state corporations. It would be much better to say it explicitly by assuming political responsibility towards public opinion. But the major shortcomings are found in the part of the motion which commits the government to adopt many duties and measures (but there is no mention of principles), in any case never aimed at guaranteeing the transparency of the appointments.
Between lights and shadows, both the commitment to “the activation of a comparative procedure of professional requirements” and the one to “publish the expiring positions on the various websites of the various ministries are fine. But this is not enough to guarantee the transparency of the appointments. For example, how to judge the authority or the reputation mentioned above in comparative procedures?
Modest acts, on the other hand, would bring some dose of transparency to the appointment procedure according to the well-known principle that "the sun is the best cure for many diseases". For example: after the online publication of the position to be filled, those who intend to fill these positions (it is therefore assumed that, as a result of a self-assessment process, they enjoy the requirements of professionalism and integrity) must send their curriculum which is published online in a special online site, but on condition that such publication takes place "with the prior authorization of the interested parties". The reverse should apply, meaning that those who do not intend to authorize the publication of their CV cannot be taken into consideration for nomination. It is objected that the natural confidentiality (??) of those who already hold relevant positions (but it could also be that they have not promoted themselves in the self-assessment process by relying on external sponsors) would be an obstacle to submitting their CV online. But whoever aspires to administer public affairs should instead be proud of showing himself capable of such a commitment to everyone.
But in scrolling through the text of the Motion, what instead begins to go badly (if not very badly) is the part where the Government undertakes to "submit the designation made by the competent Government authorities to the evaluation of a Guarantee Committee ... in order to verify compliance with the criteria and procedures envisaged for the appointments”. Indeed, I observe that the ex post submission (after the fact) to the appointment guarantee committee reduces this body to the task of exclusively formal verification which has nothing to do with the transparency of the appointments contained in the recitals, but not in the commitments to the government.
If the Commission of guarantors has to be (and not only in the role of the "fig leaf") it must be responsible for assessing ex ante the integrity and professionalism requirements of a list of candidates (for example not exceeding three) so minutely foreseen (and easily circumvented by the proposing administrations) to be submitted to the judgment of the "owner" (who bears the political burden of the appointment) and then to verify ex post that the procedures have been respected.
Allowing first the "turbidity" and then attempting an impossible rescue of the lost honor of the political parties with the affixing of the "fig leaf" on their shame seems to me to be the only result of the Motion approved by the Senate. Better to start over. Try again Sam!
