Even if with a marked delay, the reform of the public administration is starting to take shape. The enabling bill was approved last week by the House and will have to go back to the Senate for a third reading. The goal is to close the game by next autumn.
Among the measures, of a text that can be considered substantially definitive, there is the elimination of the minimum degree mark in order to participate in public competitions. A choice that leaves us perplexed for three reasons.
In the first place, requiring a minimum grade on graduation provides students with the right incentive to commit themselves during university studies and to plan their choices in a medium-long term perspective: those who want to work for the state must know that this requires commitment and constancy already during the academic course.
Secondly, upstream selection avoids contests”monstre”, with thousands of subscribers, without a real motivation but who participate only because they can. Blocking the way for those who "try" is a way of rewarding those who "invest" in their human capital, giving up insufficient grades in order to have a high average. Moreover, by shifting all the weight of the selection to the competition tests, there is the risk of multiplying the cases of errors which, certainly, were not few in the past.
Thirdly, facilitating the access of the best from the beginning of their career makes the new organization of the public administration more manageable, especially that of management, which presents many critical issues. The reform provides for term assignments - four years, renewable only once and only for another two years - and promotions based on merit. But it is legitimate to ask who and how the managers will be evaluated (there was talk of an external commission made up of experts, but its composition and selection criteria have not been defined) and, above all, what happens in the event of a negative evaluation. The text being examined by the Chambers establishes that, after an "adequate" period without office, the manager can be fired. However, the duration of this period is not specified – two years, three years, a five-year period? – although it is a not irrelevant variable for the proper functioning of a public body. On the other hand, for those who wish to remain within the public administration despite not being in office, there is the possibility of demotion. It is clear, however, that if the number of executives willing to "become officials again" were relatively high, there would be the risk of creating a class of officials who are not only not very capable, but also demotivated due to their demotion. Anyone who has worked in a ministry or in any public body does not escape, however, how precious the work done by officials is, sometimes even more than that of managers.
Given the complexities of this new architecture - and the consequent high margin of error and inevitable discretion -, the best strategy should be to organize competitions capable of best evaluating the future class of "civil servants".
Up to now, the double selection, first through the degree mark and then the competition, has been a criterion that has worked: just think that the Research Office of the Bank of Italy, which enjoys an international reputation, can be accessed through a competition that requires a minimum grade of 110 (out of 110).
Eliminating this criterion means having a less selected and, therefore, less prepared public administration. It is unclear why taxpayers, who pay the salaries of civil servants, should accept this.
