Carles Ramió: "If an official performs poorly, the administration should be able to terminate his or her services."

BarcelonaUPF political science professor Carles Ramió, president of the expert committee for public administration reform (CETRA), speaks to ARA to explain the changes the government has pledged to promote.

Why believe now that public administration reform is for real?

— It's understandable that there's a lot of skepticism because there hasn't been a reform since the 1950s. Many committees have been held, but they've only ended up with reports that haven't been implemented. Now I think things will be different because the Government has made a very explicit commitment and because, in five months of CETRA's work, in addition to the experts' proposals, the Presidency has already taken 17 urgent measures.

They want to change the civil service selection system. What exactly does this mean?

— The Spanish system of memorization-based competitive examinations is obsolete. Now, without going against memory, we must select professional profiles with very different tests. For example, an intelligence test or a psychological test, such as the ability to work collaboratively. And then, specific tests linked to the job. Also, information management skills: you send a candidate 100 emails and give them two hours to manage this information. And finally, there's a panel that asks them. Now, there's a spectacular generational shift because many public employees are retiring, and we need young people with new professional profiles, linked to the energy transition or artificial intelligence.

Would they also have a lifetime place?

— This is a controversial topic. We at CETRA have a model, but we still have to negotiate it with the government. The classic model of public administration is one of absolute stability, where once you gain access, you stay there for life. Stability isn't bad in itself. However, the administration of the present and future will have to face challenges such as COVID-19, the DANA in Valencia, or the blackout. And we need more versatile profiles. Therefore, there would be a part of the public administration that wouldn't make sense for it to be stable. The ideal model is for 20% of the administration to be variable, superjobs, For example, we could have internal consultants who, once the project is completed, would move elsewhere. There would be more opportunities to increase public service work, as outsourcing currently exists to consulting firms with fairly low performance. The remaining 80% of civil servants would be permanent but would also have a system of exceptional departures.

What does it mean?

— The idea is that if you have truly mediocre performance and terrible behavior, there must be the tools for the administration to terminate your services. This would be in very exceptional cases. In a completely objective and secure manner. In fact, it's already in place in the system; there's a disciplinary regime that's very draconian, but it turns out that in practice it's never used.

Who would have the final say? Civil servants or politicians?

— Obviously, these decision-making systems must be legally secure and professionally collegial. Because if it were up to the politicians, there would always be the suspicion of negative clientelism. And we don't want to return to the 19th-century systems in which politicians made and unmade the system's officials.

All these aspects of the stability of the civil service will generate significant political debate.

— And labor, and a corporate debate, and a union debate. Very important. And the other element is organization: there's no need for so many managers [in the administration], it should be more horizontal, fluid, and flexible.

Does the Generalitat have the authority to change the civil service selection system without conflicting with the State?

— Yes, there is a basic law, but it gives a lot of autonomy. There is already a pilot project, Catalonia Future, through interim contracts and linked to projects. Once we have the law, it will be perfectly legal and enforceable.

There are opposition parties that are criticizing the selection of these positions. Catalonia Future because they say that functions are being duplicated with other existing ones.

— None of this is true. No one has been selected yet, nor have the selection systems been established; only the call for applications has been issued. In some cases, we have a significant number of applicants, but nothing has been done yet, and yet there is already criticism. Catalonia Future It allows us to bring in people from outside the administration at much higher levels and with more competitive salaries.

Who is selecting these people?

— We're in the process. There was an initial program linked to the reform of the administration itself, a second from the Department of Economy linked to increasing competitiveness, and now an artificial intelligence program is planned. This is a pilot project, where we will test different selection systems. We also collaborate with specialized private consulting firms. headhuntersObviously, this will later be internalized.

They also propose professionalizing public managers. What would this selection system look like, and how would it affect the government?

— Spain is the only developed country that doesn't do this. We're working on two dimensions: the deputy directorates-general and the directorates-general. The current system in the deputy directorates is too open, allowing for biases and party biases, as there is freedom to appoint anyone you want as long as they are civil servants and have the necessary qualifications. What we propose is to establish a system where only those who are accredited and have the necessary managerial skills can be selected. In the directorates-general, which are now political positions, we propose that they be professional. They would be chosen by an independent commission, which would preselect three people, and the regional ministry would choose which of these three can fill the position, also considering their ties to its political project.

This affects political party financing. General directors now pay a portion of their salaries to the party.

— All parties have established professional public management in their programs. If this isn't a sham, they should be on board. I see it as pathological that political officials pay a percentage of their salaries to the party. Parties are very important, intermediaries in representative democracy, but if they have a set of expenses that the public subsidy regime can't cover, either they should tighten their belts more, or public subsidies should be increased. But they shouldn't do it through these indirect means. It deprofessionalizes the positions.

Another thing they propose is the administration's proactivity in services or benefits. How would this paradigm shift work?

— If a citizen regularly requests assistance or a subsidy, the administration itself may warn them that they are running out of funds or that, given their profile, they might be susceptible to requesting another service. What citizens will have to do is authorize the access to this type of data, which the administration already has but cannot use.

Will the work be finished in this term?

— At CETRA, we're excited because the government is taking this very seriously. But we're also depressed, because we'd like to move faster. And at the same time, we're worried because the government's work so far has been to update public administration. But this isn't a reform; it's yet to be implemented.

Will this result in public sector cuts?

— No, that's not the goal. The situation is so critical that either we reform public administration, which means changing the rules of the game, or cuts will come because society is very tense and will ultimately buy Trump-style rhetoric.