In the media’s reporting on the directors-general Ann-Marie Begler and Mikael Sjöberg, the question of the director-general enjoys the government’s confidence stood in the centre.
left his position as head of the Insurance agency in August 2017, by his own admission fired, according to Annika Strandhäll, the responsible cabinet minister in the ministry of health, on a voluntary basis.
left but not the post as head of the employment service, despite the fact that Ylva Johansson, the responsible minister, was dissatisfied at the same time, as a representative of the Centre party and the Liberals, the government’s co-operation parties, demanded his resignation.
Reporting and statements have been made that if the government would be head of the general. The idea is close at hand and is similar to what applies in the private sector, where the government closest to would be likened to the ceo of a company with many subsidiaries. The parable is based on a misunderstanding.
Who knows, maybe sneak any desire for what the director-general should make check of the periodic salary reviews.
A public authority shall act independently, interpret the laws, directions and other decisions of the government on its own responsibility. Ultimately, it is the authority’s general manager, the director-general, who is responsible for this is done in a correct way. He is appointed by and is responsible to the government, not to individual ministers. And the government should give expression of their will in the decision, not in the individual, more or less secret talks.
Let us against this background, in the both cases.
It is claimed, by by Annika Strandhäll in a hearing at KU on april 25 that the government for a long time been dissatisfied with the way Ann-Marie Begler ruled the Insurance and that it is also taken up with her repeatedly. Strandhäll performed at the same time that Ann-Marie Begler voluntarily agreed to move from social Insurance to the government offices on the grounds that the government lacked confidence in her.
But the directors shall not, they may not be even, right after ”conversations with the ministry”. They will interpret the directions in their own responsibility.
But such obligation arises only if the government can show, and in a decision invoking the objective justification for the requirement, namely, that there is a need for the agency’s best.
This is a requirement to highlight where the limits are, a requirement that is intended to protect the authority and its general manager from unauthorized pressure from the politicians in the government offices. But, it is also a requirement on the government to act when it is justified. The government may reasonably not hide a far-reaching and well-founded dissatisfaction with how the agency operated behind the talk of ”trust”, a highly subjective concept.
the Government, Annika Strandhäll, the secretary of state or what level it may be, has here constructed an alternative to förflyttningsskyldigheten. An oral, possibly many times expressed the message about the lack of trust. This procedure erodes the demarcation between the government and the authorities that the current regulations are based on the.
Something previously, they had introduced individual wage-setting, where the ministers, in practice, sets the salary for the directors-general.
Before these changes, the government was able not get rid of a director-general with less than that the person had committed a crime. Now, you can threaten with the movement of the true, factual, but still far weaker reasons than before, and partly provide services in the government offices with good salary. Therefore, commissioners found themselves in a weak position if you are considering to go against the government.
the Belief that trust from the government would be a prerequisite for the job is with today’s rules close to hand. Many ministers and commissioners are suffering enough of the misconception. But not all of them.
the state council Ylva Johansson was disappointed the director-general Mikael Sjöberg plan on downsizing. the Centre party and the Liberals demanded his resignation. But avgångskravet was unreasonable.
Mikael Sjöberg made clear once the budget was adopted that will lead to far-reaching consequences and major cutbacks. Wanted parties behind regeringsuppgörelsen have changed nothing in the mandate to the employment service had had the time.
Mikael Sjöberg stood by their plans. It means that he is acting as an agency director shall do: by following the constraints and laws.
the Future, it highlights that Ylva Johansson and Mikael Sjöberg both know where the limits are.
Ylva Johansson expressed his disappointment, but also that she has the continued confidence of Mikael Sjöberg. In an interview in Today’s Arena on april 17, she develops this. She shows that she understands the situation and respects the Seamount decision. It is also clear that she knows that she wants to have an amendment to the stalls so she can get to achieve this by the government.
In the Echo lördagsintervju 13 april pronounce Mikael Sjöberg. He understands and respects the government’s disappointment, talking about his decision was that he had the opportunity to do in the present situation, and if the new decision of the will so he may rectify itself after them.
It is not meaningful to speculate. But the formally correct reaction is to the director-general responds something like the following: ”Well, I am convinced that my interpretation of the current decision and other circumstances right. So can you (the government) does not arrange the decision and conditions so that you are satisfied so you have to try and persuade the government to relocate me. If you do this, so it is best that you leave yourself. I don’t do it.”
You have to be very sure of their case, in a situation of this kind, able to give a response like this, instead of accepting the one or the other the offer of ”an amicable settlement”.
it is difficult to see that they are consistent with the division of labor between the government and the authorities in the other states that we should have. Too much is left to the individual, ”confidential” conversation between the minister and agency director. Who knows, maybe sneak any desire for what the director-general should make check of the periodic salary reviews.
If the rules for the commissioners from the eighties should be left so need the rules in general be changed and a far greater formal responsibility placed on the government. Or why not give the boards of directors and their chairman, who in the day have been completely at hand in the question of the director-general of employment and salary level and other conditions, a role to play.
