8 Amendments of Petri SARVAMAA related to 2017/2176(DEC)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Considers that the possibility to grant discharge in the coming years will be compromised if efficient actions are not taken and effective results are not achieved without further delay;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. NRegrets to notes from the Court’s report that the Institute had four directors from its creation in 2008 until July 2014; observes that since August 2014 the position of director, and, since February 2013, another managerial position, have been filled on an ad interim basis; acknowledgendorses the Court’s comment that this is not only in contradiction with the one-year maximum period set for interim placements in the Staff Regulations, but also that the frequent changes and long interim solutions cause uncertainty to stakeholders and strategic continuity; acknowledges the Institute’s reply that it is not in a position to comment on the recruitment procedure for the Institute’s director, as that is managed by the Commission; strongly urges the Commission to finalize this outstanding procedure; notes that the Institute will complete the recruitment of the other management position post in 2017;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes with satisfaction that by reference to the number of posts occupied on 31 December 2016, there is almost a gender balance, with 56 % female to 44 % male staff; notes, however, with some concern the gender ratio of the Management Board, with 36 % and 64 %;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Acknowledges from the Institute that it is structurally understaffed, as confirmed in the Court’s Special Report No 4/2016 on the Institute; notes that the amount of grant managed per person at the Institute is significantly higher than for any other Union research grant programme: while the budget managed per staff member under the 7th Framework Programme was between EUR 12 500 000 and EUR 20 400 000, the Institute project officers manage annual grants up to EUR 90 000 000; notes that the resulting high workload and responsibility has a serious effect onmay increase staff turnover affecting the Institute’s core business;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Regrets to note from the Court’s report that KIC legal entities' procurements of up to EUR 2 200 000 were considered irregular in 2016 and proved significant shortcomings in their procurement procedures;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes with concern that the Court found weaknesses in relation to ex-post verifications of procurement procedures carried out by KIC legal entities; notes that the Court concluded differently on the legality and regularity of two procurement procedures, where the Institute accepted the direct award or excessive extension of contracts and considered the related transactions legal and regular;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. RegretNotes that the Institute does not make public the minutes of its management board meetings; calls oninvites the Institute to consider changeing its policy in that regard;