Esther Dweck, from MGI (Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services), said on Monday (24) that she does not agree with the administrative reform proposal being processed in the House of Representatives as it is written.
“There are two things getting in the way: there was no consensus logic (to arrive at the text of the proposal) and the idea of direct approval in the plenary session needs to go through a special committee,” she said during a symposium promoted by Movimento Pessoas à Frente in São Paulo.
The legislative project is headed by Rep. Pedro Paulo (PSD-RJ) and includes the PEC (Proposed Amendment to the Constitution), PLP (Supplementary Bill) and PL (Project Bill).
One of the issues I raised is that it would be necessary to talk more with representatives of other authorities, such as the judiciary, and other federal areas, such as states and municipalities, to advance the proposal. He added, “It does not make sense for this government to do this (major reform) without an agreement.”
Before the text was presented, there was a working group composed of representatives from different parties on possible changes in the performance of public administration. The Minister explained that the idea should have been to reach consensus on what would be presented as a result of this working group, but that, in her opinion, did not happen.
Dweik said that the government reviewed several copies of the text, but did not put the proposal with the representatives.
According to her, the proposal should have initially gone through a special committee to discuss it further and only then be transferred to the plenary session of the Council.
He said that since there had been no negotiation of the written text from the meetings in the working group and the matter had not been taken to a special committee, there had been significant resistance to the project and, in order to move forward, a major change would be necessary.
The PEC administrative reform project was submitted to Congress with 171 approvals out of 513 (the minimum for this type of project) after drafting by the President of the Chamber, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB), but it faced strong resistance in congressional sectors.
The minister stated that there are reasonable ideas in the project and that they differ from others, but there is a more general problem, which is excessive constitutionalization in administrative reform.
She gave examples of issues that could be resolved even by ministerial orders: the accession of states and municipalities to the CNU (National Unified Public Tender), the restructuring of jobs and indirect work: “Today remote work is guaranteed by decree, it is the decision of every manager, it is not the right of civil servants, it is an administrative decision.” For her, it would not make sense to include this in the Constitution.
Speaking of this last topic, I mentioned that MGI itself had issued a decree containing guidelines to guide the restructuring process, but this was not an obligation for government bodies because each of them had a very specific functional logic.
Another point that has been criticized is aspects of the reform that, in her opinion, weaken the stability of public servants. She said she supports creating an evaluation of staff performance so residents know what they are doing, but the government defends stability as a protection for the state.
Entities representing civil servants campaigned in Congress to demand that representatives withdraw the signatures. At least ten lawmakers who initially supported the PEC have backed down (the measure has no effect, text processing continues).