Transparency 8: Caducity of Appointments in Evaluation Commitee
On October 19th was published the first appointment of positions for the Evaluation Committee of Medicine for veterinarian use (BOE 250 on October 19th 1999 order 20581).
This publication literally said the following:
“The article 23.1 of the mentioned Royal Decree states that the Evaluation Committee of Medicine for veterinarian use will be composed by 5 members (due to their positions) and 12 members appointed by the Ministry of Health and Consume for a 4 year period”.
What happened with the renewal of positions which were supposed to be done in 2003? Nothing happened. There were not renewals of positions. Therefore that Committee acted with its members in absence of renewed appointment.
After 1 year, 7 months, and 2 days, under irregular situation, some new positions were published.
The Official Bulletin of the Spanish State published on April 21st 2005 in its edition 95 the Order SCO/1031/2005, OF April 6th, where the members of the Evaluation Committee of Medicine for veterinarian use from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health Products were appointed.
On the same text we can read literally the following:
“The first appointment of members of this Committee was carried out by the Order of October 11th 1999 (BOE, October 19th). On the other hand, the Law 16/2003, of May 28th), about Cohesion and Quality of Health National System, modified the name of the agency from Spanish Agency of the Medicine to Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health products, so they broadened their competences. After this publication, the Royal Decree 1087/2003, of August 29th, establishes the organic structure of the Ministry of Health and Consume as well as its functions, and the advice organs mentioned within 19-24 articles of its Statute become attached to the same agency. By this rule, it is necessary to proceed to a new appointment of the members of the Evaluation Committee of Medicine for veterinarian use”.
From Veterinaria Digital, we condemn this situation for the risk that supposes, for the legitimacy of the decisions guaranteed or recommended, the action of this Committee with its expired positions during so long and considering that in the publication in 2005 they recognise that the last appointment took place in 1999. With all the information mentioned above, we consider the following questions:
1. Whom does this delay on renewal of positions favour?
2. Are these delays caused by internal disagreements on the functionality of this Committee since 1999?
3. If these disagreements did exist, why did the former members of the Committee not report it?
4. Has this Committee taken some determinations presumably not adjusted to right despite of the probable internal opposition?
5. Do we should cancel all the decisions taken by the Assistant Director of Medicines for Veterinarian Use due to some reports about this Committee because they are not adjusted to right?
In the blog of Transparency nº 6 in Veterinaria Digital we already mentioned that the Assistant of Medicines for veterinarian use acted without public appointment in B.O.E. from 2000 to 2006.
In the blog of Transparency nº 7 in Veterinaria Digital we also mentioned that the same Assistant Director was offering services to pass procedures which had to be approved by herself during her period as public officer.
Finally, in this blog nº 8, it has been demonstrated that an organ of the same Assistant Direction which had the same Assistant Director as a secretary acted during 1 year, 7 months and 2 days with her positions expired.
For this reason, we keep wondering the following questions:
1. How come a public organism can accumulate such quantity of deficiencies in such a short period immediately after its implementation?
2. Which hidden interests can be found behind this situation?