INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM The  amendments  to  the  Parliamentary  Assembly’s  Rules  of Procedure proposed by  Vice  President  Kessler  address  several  issues which have been considered and rejected by the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly on previous occasions.  Although one of  the  proposals  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  an  improvement  in  the Rules  of  Procedure,  I  think  that  these  proposals  for  the  most  part would   do   great   damage   to   the   efficient   manner   in   which   the International Secretariat has functioned for more than 12 years.  Given the   past   history   of   consideration   of   some   of   these   ideas   by   the Parliamentary  Assembly’s  Standing  Committee,  I  doubt  that  any  of them    would    receive    the    consensus– less– one    required    for    their adoption.  Some of the reasons supporting these proposals put forward by Mr. Kessler are simply not accurate. With  regard  to  proposed  new  Rule  38,  paragraph  1,  I  would point out that the five-year term was adopted in 1995 unanimously by the Standing Committee.  The reason put forward by the Chairman of the Rules Committee at the time was that the Assembly should have a continuity of staff leadership that could function free from political or partisan  pressures  from  within  the  Assembly  or  the  OSCE.    Prior  to that  time,  the  initial  appointment  of  the  Secretary  General  had  been indefinite  –   with  no  set  term  –   and  had  required  a  full  consensus approval.    The  Rules  Committee  changed  to  consensus– less– one  for such future decisions as well as all others in the Standing Committee, to  prevent  decisions  being  blocked  by  a  single  country  veto.    The reason given for proposing that the Secretary General be re-elected by a    majority    vote    of    the    Standing    Committee    without    requiring renomination by the Bureau was to protect the Secretary General from retaliation  by  individuals  or  delegations  who  might  try  to  blackmail him  to  take  actions  which  were  prejudicial,  not  compatible  with  the Rules, or not in the best interests of the Assembly.  As we have seen, the OSCE governmental side has suffered greatly because of this kind of   abuse   of   the   consensus   rule.      The   Secretary   General   of   the

2 governmental side as well as of the Parliamentary Assembly are under constant pressure to provide jobs within the Secretariat for candidates put  forward  by  various  countries  or  parliaments,  some  of  whom  are not highly qualified for the positions they seek.  All of the Secretaries General of the OSCE have experienced this kind of problem.  I have, of course, also experienced this situation, including one attempt by a Secretary of Delegation to force me to hire a relative who was totally unqualified for a position in the Secretariat.  That particular Secretary of  Delegation  has  attempted  to  cause  difficulties  for  me  ever  since  I rejected his effort.  The potential for abuse of this kind is obvious, and Secretaries  General,  whether  it  is  myself  or  someone  else,  should  be protected from retaliation when making decisions of this kind.  That is why  the  renewal by  majority  vote of the Standing Committee,  rather than by consensus– less– one, was adopted. During  the  early  days  there  were  some  proposals  that  had  the Secretary   General   elected   by   a   majority   vote   of   the   Standing Committee or the Assembly.  Since the adoption of the rule change to consensus– less– one,    these    proposals    never    get    very    far,    since Members  of  the  Standing  Committee  have  wanted  to  retain  as  much influence as possible over the initial appointment of a new Secretary General.   The idea of limiting the Secretary General to two 5-year terms was  also  considered  and  rejected.    The  main  reason  was  that  all  the politicians  were against term  limits  and  felt  there should be as  much stability, continuity and experience in the Secretariat as possible, and that qualified personnel should be developed and maintained to ensure efficiency   and   to   better   serve   the   Membership.      Contrary   to   the argument  put  forth by  Mr.  Kessler,  this is  the case  in  the  Council of Europe  Parliamentary  Assembly  and  the  Western  European  Union Parliamentary Assembly.  There is no term limit for the COE or WEU Secretaries General, and they both have unlimited renewable five-year terms.    The  NATO  Parliamentary  Assembly  has  recently  adopted  a rule   change   limiting   the   Secretary   General   to   six   2-year   terms.   However,  this  rule  was  recently  waived  by  a  majority  vote  of  the Standing   Committee   to   extend   the   term   of   the   present   Secretary General  to  a  renewable  4-year  term.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  WEU Parliamentary Assembly and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly have each  had  only  4  and  3  Secretaries  General,  respectively,  during  the past 50 years.   The  idea  of  applying  OSCE  staff  regulations  to  the  Assembly would be a catastrophe.  If these regulations were adopted, 9 of the 14

3 permanent staff in Copenhagen –  the entire substantive staff –  would all be in violation of the service limits, leaving only 3 secretaries and an assistant press officer who are relatively new to the Assembly staff.   The limitations placed on length of service have caused problems for the  OSCE  Secretary  General  and  Heads  of  OSCE  Institutions  ever since  the  OSCE  Secretariat  and  Institutions  were  established  thirteen years  ago.    Their  Rules  make  it  extremely  difficult  for  the  OSCE  to recruit   highly   qualified  people,  because   there   is   no   future   in  the Organization.    These  regulations  have  also  caused  the  loss  of  many valuable and experienced workers who fell under the axe to length of service rules.  The present OSCE rules provide for a limit of 3 years with a possible extension of 1 year for senior personnel, with a limit of 2   years   with   a   possible   1-year   extension   below   the   senior   level.   Although  the  Secretary  General  may,  at  his  discretion,  extend  these periods,  in  no  event  can  anyone  serve  for  more  than  7  years  in  the OSCE.    The  result  is,  of  course,  that  the  OSCE  has  no  continuity  in the professional staff and has lost many, if not most, of its most highly productive professionals, particularly at the higher levels. I    should    also    point    out    that    all    the    other    International Parliamentary  Secretariats  do  not  have  limits  of  service  in  terms  of years for their personnel.  More than 90% of the staff members of the COE Parliament are civil servants with permanent tenure who can stay until they are 65 years of age.  There is no age limit for the Secretary General.    The  WEU  Parliament  is  much  the  same,  although  their personnel can stay in service until age 70.  Again there is no limit on age  or  length  of  service  of  the  Secretary  General  of  the  WEU.    The NATO Parliament’s rules are similar to those of the WEU and COE’s Parliaments –  no age limits for Secretary General, no length of service restrictions  on  personnel  and  an  age  limit  of  65  for  personnel  below the  top  positions.    Mr.  Kessler’s  arguments  completely  misstate  the facts regarding the practices in these other Assemblies. In  addition,  applying  the  OSCE  regulations  to  the  staff  of  the Assembly’s Secretariat would mean a enormous increase in the budget of the Assembly because the salary, allowances, and other benefits for the OSCE are much higher than those provided for the Parliamentary Assembly.    As  a  matter of  fact, the  OSCE  is  probably  the  most  well paid  international  Secretariat  in  the  world,  certainly  higher  than  the United Nations, NATO or the COE.  Two years ago one of our staff members  did  a  comparison  of  salaries  and  benefits  to  the  OSCE governmental    side    and    found    that    adoption    of    the    personnel regulations regarding pay benefits and allowances of the OSCE would increase   our   budget   between   30   to   40%   in   that   category,   which

4 accounts for nearly half of our annual budget.  That is not to say that the PA staff is not well paid, but that our staff pay scales were initially based  on  the  pay  scales  of  the  Danish  Parliament.    Our  present  pay scale puts our staff somewhere in between the Danish Parliament staff and the OSCE. With regard to proposed new Rule 38 calling for a geographic and gender balance to be ensured with respect to the Secretariat staff, this  is  a  provision  that  no  international  parliament  or  organization  in the world has adopted and which would be impossible to apply.  For instance,  how  would  you  apply  geographic  balance  from  55  separate countries  to  a  Secretariat  with  only  14  permanent  staff  members,  at least 1/3 of whom are necessarily local support staff.  I have, however, attempted    to    ensure    some    balance.    The    current    staff    of    the International  Secretariat  comes  from  the  following  countries:  Russia, Slovakia, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Canada, the U.S.   and   Denmark,   representing   North,   South,   East   and   West   of Vienna.  In  addition,  we  have  had  Research  Fellows  from  25  OSCE participating States. This is the way I make sure that the International Secretariat includes the abilities and linguistic requirements we need. As   far   as   gender   balance   is   concerned,   the   staff   of   the   OSCE Parliamentary  Assembly  has  always  been  closer  to  gender  balance than any of the other OSCE Institutions.  The present permanent staff consists of 7 males and 7 females.  Although we have perfect gender balance  at  the  moment,  the  main  criteria  for  recruiting  personnel should  be  ability,  competence,  experience  and  linguistic  capability.   By applying this criteria, we have been able to recruit an extraordinary staff,  which  has  received  constant  praise  from  the  Members  of  the Assembly   with   whom   they   work,   as   well   as   from   our   sister Parliamentary  Assemblies.  I  doubt  that  any  International  Secretariat can  match  the  per  capita capability  of this  Secretariat.    The  adoption of  Mr.  Kessler’s  amendments  would  destroy  the  present  staff  of  the Assembly. I  am  in  favor  of  the  Deputy  Secretaries  General  appointments being   confirmed   by   a   majority   vote   of   the   Standing   Committee, although, as I previously pointed out, I doubt the Standing Committee will approve this Rules change from consensus-less-one.  As far as the point  about  “total  discretion”  being  avoided    in  choosing  Secretariat staff,  I  don’t  understand  what  Mr.  Kessler  is  trying  to  achieve.    The Secretaries  General  of  the  OSCE  and  the  NATO,  COE  and  WEU Parliamentary  Assemblies  all  have,  as  I  do,  the  right  to  hire  and  fire the   staff   of   their   respective   Secretariats.      This   is   simply   good management  and  is  practiced  in  every  organization  and  institution

5 with which I am familiar. In conclusion, I would simply say that there is no demonstrated need for the changes Mr. Kessler proposes, nor would they helpful to the efficient management of the International Secretariat.  As a matter of fact, the consequences of their adoption would be very damaging to the efficiency and stability of the International Secretariat.