Aardvark

Would this make the names 'ghost' employees, if they were on a list but had never been seen? Is it true that part of OLAF's ongoing investigations is into 'ghost' employees?

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Bob FM

But weren't these claims investigated and found to be untrue. gc did you not volunteer your direct evidence to any such investigation.

Aardvark

Bob, do you have a link for that? I was asking a couple of questions. If someone knows the answers and can provide evidence I would be appreciative.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

SponPlague

Bob: It was suggested Tom Wise had been cleared. Then we heard the police had arrested him, some time later.

I have learnt to assume nothing in this game...

gc

Highly unlikely that they would be ghost employees. To get a contract with the EP is not easy, and the list of personal documents one has to provide is exhaustive. Those being referred to as EU Observer dedicated are on EP contracts.

To create ghost employees in the context of MEPs assistant contracts would be child's play. To do it on group '4000 budget' contracts is quite possible, but these would be scrutinised by Secretary Generals and group presidents.

Of the contracts I have seen of the latter types, relating to the EU democrats, I know that those folks do exist.

An MEP wanting to create a ghost employee would certainly want that 'employee' to be purely assigned to duties in his or her member state, and would not risk any unecessary exposure of the name. He or she would never have to reveal the existence to colleagues, or to the Secretariat of the political group. I am aware of a group staff member gaining access to one UKIP MEPs personal information in an attempt to make trouble, however, so even this method is not foolproof, especially if you have enemies at the top.

An easier and safer way, of course, is to just stick a family member on a contract, although the Parliament has now tightened up on this. Whilst spouses etc on existing contracts will remain employed, there will be no further employment of close family members.

Amusingly, the responsible directorate has raised the question of employment of mistresses (and assumingly the male equivalent). How they would police that one can only imagine!