The examination at the time of the pandemic
Sisto explains that the affair was “reported by the media following an anonymous report spread on a social network.” “Despite the absence of formal reports, the Ministry of Justice immediately proceeded to initiate the investigations of the case within the scope of their competences. In particular, he requested information from the Brescia and Lecce Courts of Appeal responsible for the organizational profiles of the session in question »explains Sisto. This year, due to the pandemic, “the exams are held remotely through a connection with a telematic platform”: according to what is defined by the ministerial decree of 13 April, “the secrecy of the” chamber of advice “and at the same time the publicity of the candidate’s examination”. In particular, article 3 of the decree states that «at the end of the discussion, i commission members leave the virtual classroom used for the exam and retire to the council chamber using a different virtual classroom to decide the grade to be attributed to the candidate “:” Audio-video recording of the session by any means is prohibited “.
But what went wrong on 4 June in Brescia where, it must be remembered, are the candidate lawyers examined by the commissioners of the Lecce Court of Appeal? From the elements known so far, it appears that “the technical measures to guarantee the secrecy of the council chamber have not been adopted” – “In particular – explains Sisto – the discussion between the commissioners of the IV subcommittee of Lecce is occurred, inadvertently, in the same virtual room used for the examination of the candidate and the connection with the secretary present in Brescia ». In the relation signed by three commissioners of the 4th subcommittee (two lawyers and a magistrate) transmitted to the ministry it emerges that «June 4th Five candidates were screened of which the first three deemed suitable (the first and third with the score of 18/30 and the second with the score of 22/30) e the fourth and fifth are not eligible with a score of 12/30 and 14/30 respectively. At the time of the examination of the third candidate, the composition of the commission changed by replacing a professor member with a member magistrate who connected remotely. At this stage, the expressions “at the center of the controversy would have been uttered.”
“An invitation to stricter evaluations”
Sisto reports other passages from the report of the IV sub-commission of Lecce which arrived at the Ministry of Justice. The most important one concerns the sentence attributed to the magistrate component (“we can’t promote everyone, we’re low”): “This expression – explains Sisto – does not correctly reflect what was declared by the [commissario], which in the first instance he asked the other members about the results of the first tests to which he had not been present, inviting as often happens in internal discussions to a selection board avmore rigorous alutations ». The expression “we’re low», The members of the evaluation commission explain,« he was referring not to the numerical data of suitable candidates to the subsequent oral tests, but to the evaluation of the single test exam based on the candidate’s performance “.
The reassurances of the ministry
Sisto underlines «the extraneousness of the Ministry the profiles pertaining to the evaluation of candidates, which constitutes the exclusive prerogative of the commissions on the basis of the criteria elaborated by the central Commission set up at the Ministry “. But, he adds, “also for the serenity of the candidates in view of their tests, that it is a question of a qualification exam for which there is no limit to the number of suitable candidates“. And, in conclusion, he reassures «that, in any case, the Ministry will dedicate particular attention to the regular performance of the tests and to the technical organization of them in the interest of the candidates called to take the exam ».
June 11, 2021 (change June 11, 2021 | 12:01)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED