The eternal debate of revolving doors: a common law and a multitude of scenarios

Miguel Ángel Guzmán served as Deputy Minister of Health of the Junta de Andalucía until three months ago. Less than 100 days after closing that political stage, he signed with Asisa, one of the main health insurance companies. The commotion caused by this new case of a revolving door—the transition from a public position to a private company apparently linked to his previous job—led Guzmán on Thursday to postpone his incorporation until the conclusions of the incompatibilities report prepared by the Board were known.

The letter, published on Friday, rules that the former PP official can sign for Asisa, although he will have to wait almost four months, until July 29. On that date, two years have passed – the period established by law – since Guzmán ceased as manager of the Andalusian Health Service (SAS), a department that awarded contracts to Asisa for more than 43 million euros. The point is that later, between July 2022 and December 2023, Guzmán was Deputy Minister of Health – number two in the ministry – but the report does not see any incompatibility between the exercise of that second position and the signing by a private insurer. . The case has reopened the debate about the limits of revolving door regulation.

Can a politician combine his position with another job?

Depends. Law 3/2015, of national scope, which regulates the exercise of the senior position of the General Administration of the State, says that this work is of “exclusive dedication” and that senior officials “will not be able to make their activity compatible” with the performance of “any other position, position, representation, profession or activity, whether public or private, self-employed or employed by others.” With one exception: literary, artistic, scientific or technical production and creation and publications or presentations are compatible, “as long as they do not undermine the strict fulfillment of their duties.”

From this framework, the regional laws establish their guidelines: in the case of Andalusia, for example, the law authorizes senior officials to make this work compatible with that of deputies of the Andalusian Parliament (without being able to charge for it) and also to work as university professors, with salary limits. Outside of these two activities (and some other issues such as the administration of one's own assets), senior officials cannot engage in any other activity during their political period.

And when does he leave politics?

What happens when a public official leaves politics and decides to look for work in the private sector? What limits does it have? “The phenomenon of revolving doors,” observes Professor of Administrative Law at the University of A Coruña Carlos Amoedo, “puts at risk the impartiality of the exercise of administrative powers by senior officials.” Hence, he explains, the national law and the various regional laws have established a common period of two years from the termination. During those two years, the former high official cannot be hired by companies that he has directly or indirectly benefited during his tenure as a politician. The problem is that this link is not always obvious: it must be determined in each case.

What does the national law say? And the regional regulations?

In Spain, the law that regulates this issue for all public officials is 53/1984, of December 26, on Incompatibilities of personnel in the service of Public Administrations. It affects the entire Public Administration: central government, autonomous communities and local entities. Even personnel who provide services in companies where the direct or indirect participation of the State is greater than 50%. This is the law that establishes that public officials, upon leaving their position, must allow two years to pass before being able to sign for private companies that handle matters in which the politician “has intervened.” The same limit is established by specific law 3/2015 on senior officials.

Professor Amoedo warns that “the matter has been complicated by the existence of regulations and anti-corruption programs in each Administration, which are also relevant to correctly delimit the law applicable to senior officials.”

Most communities have a record of conflict of interest among senior officials. However, in recent weeks there have been quite a few changes. In the Balearic Islands, the PP and Vox Government has closed the Anti-Corruption Office due to “duplicity of powers” ​​and to seek “a modern and efficient administration.” This office had 4,400 asset declarations for 1,200 positions and 9,300 personal income tax declarations, which will no longer be available.

In the Valencian Community, also governed by the PP and Vox, a bill presented last month by the regional government plans to reduce the incompatibilities provided for senior officials before and after exercising their public functions. The intention is for the administration to be more agile and not lose the most talented professionals, as argued by the popular spokesperson, Miguel Barrachina, reports Ferran Bono.

On Tuesday, Castilla-La Mancha, governed by the PSOE, announced a tightening of its regulations. Each public official must now sign a “responsible declaration of compatibility of their activity.” The regional Integrity Office will have one month to study each case and, if it does not comply with the law, the politician must leave office. Another novelty will be the verification of the assets of each member of the Government in each legislature, while for the rest of the senior positions it will be voluntary.

What is the Conflict of Interest Office for?

The national Office of Conflicts of Interest (OCI) was created in 2006. Transparence law In 2013, it was granted instruction powers over sanctioning procedures against senior officials or personnel of the Administration. Every six months it prepares a report that is presented to the Congress of Deputies. Since 2007 it has been directed by Flor María López Laguna.

The OIC can also veto the employment of former senior officials during the two years following their departure from the Administration, if it considers that they violate the law. EL PAÍS published in 2017 that this happens on very few occasions. In fact, only 7 of the 377 applications received in 10 years (2007-2017) were denied; that is, less than 2%. The latest data available is from the first quarter of 2023, when 36 applications were approved, as stated on the Transparency portal which, however, does not give the number of denied requests. In total, since 2014, 480 authorizations have been granted for senior positions.

“The main hole in the system lies in the fact that the office does not carry out any verification of the activities of former senior officials who do not submit a request for authorization,” Jaime Castellano, researcher at Hay Derecho and co-author of a study on revolving doors. “The system trusts in the good faith of former senior officials. There are no control and monitoring mechanisms,” he adds. “If a former senior official sends a request to the office to authorize a certain activity, the request is analyzed, and it is normal for it to be approved. But the problem is that a former senior official could carry out an activity without asking for prior permission, because no one controls or monitors them.”

The Court of Accounts denounced in an April 2016 report the gaps in the OIC's actions, with a forceful conclusion: “No action was taken to verify the reality of the data declared by senior officials.”

_