Argentine Science-Traffic of Influence-Text addressed to President Cristina Kirchner
Por Eduardo R. Saguier - Thursday, Sep. 23, 2010 at 7:07 PM
saguiere@ssdnet.com.ar (Casilla de correo válida)

Summary of text addressed to President Cristina Kirchner about Traffic of Influence in Argentine Science

CONICET Researcher, Eduardo R. Saguier requests President Kirchner to perform a comprehensive investigation by means of a summary proceeding in order to cast light on facts that may be crimes of traffic of influence among officers of the Ministry of Science and Technology. The co-option and recruitment system built by triangulation of reciprocities among public servants belonging to agencies under the scope of said Ministry as well as the Ministry of Education, resulted in the existence of an academic nomen(k)lature in the scientific field, and in the practice of discretional evaluations and promotions of researchers where they have not had any institutional intermediation for protection purposes.

The above results in a mesh of bureaucratically related interests which impact on the entire science and higher education management system of Argentina, and which hence has an unusual institutional jeopardy, the main victim of which has been and still is the public good, the scientific community and its members' creativity and freedoms. The infringements with the law of public ethics added to the violations of the natural judge's fundamental rights, the due process of law and the right to defense, in addition to the arbitration seen at the CONICET of any evaluation procedure are good grounds to qualify the institutional jeopardy of the case as it has corrupted the knowledge apparatus and turned it into a bureaucratized science, deprived of the needed creative momentum, and because what is so much vital has threatened the entire system and the design of the fundamental rights set forth in our National Constitution.




Buenos Aires, Thursday August 26, 2010

To the President of the Republic
Dr. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

By hand
Institutional Jeopardy

Dear Madam,

CONICET Professional Researcher Eduardo R. Saguier, ID 4394928, sponsored by Dr. Jorge E. Marenco, addresses the President of the Republic Dr. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in order to request the performance of a comprehensive investigation by means of a relevant summary proceeding in order to cast light on facts that may be crimes of traffic of influence among officers of subordinate agencies of the Ministry of Science and Technology (ANPCYT and CONICET). In fact, these agents appear to have been the material and intellectual perpetrators of the disqualification and rejection of my Regulatory Reports 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 (docket 2209/06), confirmed by the Minister of Science and Technology Dr. José Lino Barañao; or otherwise, a violation of the moral and public ethics since the status of judge and party overlap in the servants themselves.

This sort of persecution was due to the following: a) in 2002, I, the undersigned, publicly criticized the way the CONICET Board’s authorities granted to numerous researchers the status of advisors and/or consultants, and ratified them in a summary proceeding opened up in this respect, where I assumed the public statements of Enrico Stefani’s (Docket CONICET No.003361/02), former President of CONICET, as my own; b) in December 2005, I reported to the surveillance agencies (Ombudsman, Anticorruption Office, National District Attorney’s General Office for Administrative Research and General Auditing), the authorities of said National Agency for Scientific-Technologic Promotion (ANPCYT); and c) in May 2009 I sued those same authorities before Federal Criminal Court No. 8, in which Dr. Marcelo Martínez de Georgi sits, on various facts that may be crimes, including, among others, traffic of influence, fraudulent management and malfeasance, for having allocated the Agency’s subsidies to themselves, granting research subsidies to public agencies’ (CONICET) authorities, some of which operate under the scope of the Ministry they belong to (Science and Technology) and others under a related Ministry (Culture and Education), and having acted as assessors when they should have refrained from it. The persecution provoked by these reports ended up in Resolution 493/10 of 26 July 2010, signed by the Minister of Science and Technology Dr Baraño, whereby my appeal was rejected and the actions taken by the History, Anthropology and Geography Advising Committee were ratified in the meeting of 8 May 2009.

A situation similar to that of the Agency occurred then among the authorities and directors of CONICET who evaluated my Reports, since they included the appointees of the Board in order to achieve a systematic majority to influence and direct the results of the evaluations for later reward once they had met their expectations (with subsidies, promotions, authorizations for advising, travel expenses, etc.). The authorities and directors that benefited by said subsidies from the Ministry of Science and Technology were three (3) members of CONICET Board (Siñeriz, Rapela, Girbal), fifty members of the Advisory Committees, and fifty Coordinators and co-coordinators of the Agency or ANPCYT; and those from the Ministry of Education were from the CONEAU Board (Villanueva, Krotsch). Among the assessors of the History and Anthropology Committee who made a negative review of my Reports, thirty two (32) received various subsidies before and after the evaluations from the Agency and CONICET itself, which would confirm my assumption about the corrupted nature of those who assessed me (see payroll of Assessors subsidized by the Agency in Annex I).

Despite the high proportion of assessors subsidized by the Agency present in the Advisory Committee who rejected my two (2) consecutive biannual Reports, the list of the scientific disciplines of my assessors in four successive compositions of said Committee is astonishing as most of them are unrelated to mine: History (see payroll of the Committee divided by scientific discipline in Annex-II). More specifically, the aforementioned Agency, then headed by the current Minister of Science and Technology Dr. Barañao, indicates the recording of --before and after the negative reports-- many research subsidies for the benefit of its authorities (Coordinators and co-coordinators) and those of CONICET (see details in Annex-III). All in all, I have been assessed by people who received or were promised subsidies.

All the evidence shown and alleged in the three (3) Annexes, with the relevant last names, disciplines, agencies, amounts of money and docket codes, which must be administratively and judicially attested and confirmed, shows the institutional jeopardy as they include four determining concepts: 1) alleged and continuous accomplice status; 2) resolute connivance among many public officers; 3) manifest abuse of governmental position; 4) total indifference of moral duties imposed by the law of public ethics.

Evidently the large number of members of the History, Anthropology and Geography Committee includes many who lack specific competence in the History area, hence, the latter should have had the unavoidable duty of stepping aside, since they lack the essential attribute required for the scientific evaluation of a researcher belonging to a discipline which is not their own. The approval of this aberration violates the natural judge’s principle since the majority of the appointed jury members have been servants professionally incompetent and inept for carrying out the specific scoring function. Likewise, this violates the principle set forth in article 18 of the National Constitution, and it constitutes an abuse of the law according to the terms of article 1071, Civil Code, since out of complete lack of respect for my specialty a tribunal was set up, including Assessors who were mostly unrelated to the history discipline (which is my scientific specialty whereby I should have been assessed). Furthermore, all this was performed without observing the administrative rules of Law 19549, which imposes motivation and effective causality on any action, only complied with when the person being administered has been able to challenge those who have been appointed jury members, which is an unavoidable legal right of defense constitutionally guaranteed. Moreover, what has been reported hereby constitutes a manifest violation to the due legal process in any occasion that the National Constitution demands that any procedure should comply with the acting and procedure assumptions of law 19549, both in the administrative and in the judiciary venues. In that respect, law 19549 is very precise and charges with lack of motivation and causality everything that does not follow the due administrative process as it occurred in this case, despite the flaw regarding the intended actions taken in respect of the undersigned.

If, on the other hand, as it is explained above, the jury servants who have taken part in the evaluation of my Reports are proved to have been involved in the material cause of rejection as they were the servants who received privileges under the category of subsidies in an Agency, subject matter of my reports to the surveillance agencies and of criminal charges before the federal criminal jurisdiction, the result is that not only has the due legal process been violated but also that my defense right has been threatened for the non-removal of all the jury servants involved in the fact –subject matter of said reports and charges. Such removal could only be performed via challenge, right that I was deprived of with arbitrariness and by means of actions of manifest nullity –as I have been reporting-, and this impacts on the whole evaluation process and also constitutes a cause for institutional jeopardy because my defense right, that is, a constitutional right, was enervated. Therefore, all this indicates that the servants in charge (CONICET) took unlawful actions, which violated my fundamental rights, with the clear intention of inflicting damage without taking into account the vulnerability of my prerogative at all.

The agency that has the duty of neutrality conversely shows a co-option and connivance behavior with the juries involved in the evaluation of Reports. As a result, the latter became reward givers who make their pronouncements a service or delivery, in answer to a previous indication, or a hidden mandate, for an evaluation that can be either in favor or against them, but that in my particular case was against.

This arbitrariness becomes more extensive if we take into account that CONICET operates with twenty (20) Advisory Committees, which, though they are renewable, we can perceive a standing systematic majority composed of people who receive or had been promised subsidies that they were granted later on. More likely than not, the twenty committees -CONICET- are corrupted to a similar or higher degree than the one that is referred to in this very research and summary request. The lack of accountability in the academic life of the highest science agency in the country is also proved if we take into account that it is currently headed by astronomer Marta G. Rovira, the same servant who closely related to the authorities criminally accused, previously performed the role of Coordinator in the Agency or ANPCYT.

The co-option and recruitment system built by triangulation of reciprocities among public servants belonging to agencies under the scope of the same Ministry as well as under different Ministries, resulted in an academic nomen(k)lature in the scientific field currently in force and in the practice of discretional evaluations and promotions of researchers where they have not had any timely institutional intermediation for protection purposes. This triangulation has also occurred among subordinate agencies of the Ministry of Culture and Education (CONEAU, University Policies Secretariat or SPU), since the aforementioned Agency has legal rights for the categorization of professors-researchers in National Universities for the grant of the so-called incentives, and even with the Science and Technology Secretariats in National Universities, which are responsible for auditing the rendering of accounts of those who receive subsidies. In fact, these audits are not known by anybody. The above, results in a mesh of bureaucratically related interests which impact on the entire science and higher education management system of Argentina, and which hence has an unusual institutional jeopardy, the main victim of which has been and still is the public good, the scientific community and its members' creativity and freedoms.

At this point it is clear that CONICET Board’s authorities, possessing absolute rights encroaches on and restricts rights and warranties since the Agency’s foundational Law, Decree 1661/96 and Law 25200, allows for choosing the Advisory Committee or special committees’ members directly. Furthermore, the latter can choose the expert assessors for regulatory Reports within a confidentiality or identity secrecy framework, whereby the assessor is a masked appointee whose identity is only possible once the work assessed has been rejected.

This proves that the judging and evaluation of Researchers’ Reports is performed by the directors of CONICET or their appointees, chosen within an arbitrary framework, which allows for clandestine, segregationist or confirmatory mandates that openly affect justice, equity and excellence, and causes serious moral, property and academic damage. This is what CONICET’s Legal Service recently pointed out in its opinion, pages 190/192 in docket 2209/06 – which the Minister of the area has hidden. In order to protect academic and research freedom I kindly request the elaboration of an administrative summary.

The institutional jeopardy and the lack of transparency become much more eloquent if it is considered that we are dealing with a group of servants who have been beneficiaries of the system which embezzled during thirteen years (1997-2010) the huge sum of $1.240 billion dollars from a loan provided by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and of which only $40 million dollars were allocated to improving the scientific infrastructure (Equipment Improvement Program, PME), and the remaining $1.2 billion to personal projects of those who are already part of the scientific machinery payroll. And as a further cause for scandal, said group of servants and Minister Barañao fake statistics on their website to make a good image to society and credit agencies (IDB) and enunciated in 2007 a self-amnesty for the accusations lodged against him (see report by the National Committee for Ethics in Science and Technology or CECTE). All this would not be possible without silencing, persecuting and taking reprisals against the reporting person, by disqualifying his academic production.

Such abuse of power and rights, which the Law explicitly condemns, no doubt constitutes a clear institutional jeopardy since the rights contained in article 18 of the National Constitution are seriously enervated. The infringements with the law of public ethics added to the violations of the natural judge's fundamental rights, the due process of law and the right to defense, in addition to the arbitrariness seen of any evaluation procedure are good grounds to qualify the institutional jeopardy of the case as it has corrupted the knowledge apparatus and turned it into a bureaucratized science, deprived of the needed creative momentum, and because what is so much vital has threatened the entire system and the design of the fundamental rights set forth in our National Constitution. Likewise, the explicit eagerness to act in an unfair manner violates the primary assumption according to which fundamental rights must be complied with, and which appears as a basic axiom imposed on the State: consolidate justice as stated in the Preamble to our Constitution.

Last but not least, as prescribed by the Law of Public Ethics and because of institutional jeopardy, a thorough research of the facts hereby reported must be carried out together with the elaboration of a consistent summary. The docket should also be read by the Ombudsman and the State's controller agencies, which should make their decision, preceded by the relevant compulsory opinion, since they bear primary responsibility over the monitoring of the state servants' performance.

Thanks in advance. Kind regards,

Eduardo R. Saguier, Ph.D.
Researcher-CONICET
Museo Roca
Instituto de Teoría General del Derecho-UNNE
Círculo de Estudios Tucididianos (CET)
http://www.er-saguier.org
Juan F. Segui 3955—2º Dpto E
1425--Capital


Anexo I

Integrantes de la Comisión de Historia y Antropología del CONICET que fueron subsidiados por la Agencia (2002-2009)

Los integrantes de la Comisión de Historia y Antropología del CONICET agrupados por los subsidiados de la Agencia, fue la siguiente: a) los miembros evaluadores que siendo subsidiados por la Agencia rechazaron mi Informe 2002/2003 fueron diez (10) Investigadores sobre un total de diecinueve (19), o más de la mitad de la Comisión, siendo los mismos: Eduardo E. Berberian, Roberto Joaquín Bárcena, Cristina Bellelli, Daniel Campi, Francisco Carnese, Edgardo Cordeu, Ana Inés Ferreyra, Ariel Omar Guiance, Mónica Cira Salemme, y Alejandra Siffredi (Reunión del 6 de agosto de 2004, Leg.00913); b) los miembros evaluadores que siendo subsidiados por la Agencia ratificaron el rechazo de mi Informe 2002/2003 fueron catorce (14) Investigadores sobre un total de diecinueve (19), o el 75% de la Comisión, siendo los mismos: Alejandra Siffredi, Ana María Presta, Cristina Bellelli, Daniel Campi, Edgardo Cordeu, Eduardo E. Berberian, Cristian Rainerio Buchrucker, Francisco Carnese, Sonia Edith Colantonio, Ariel Omar Guiance, Beatriz Solveira, Mabel Adriana Grimberg, Osvaldo Mendonca, y Mónica Cira Salemme (Reunión del 11 de agosto de 2005, Exp.No. 3987/04); c) en la Comisión que dictaminó negativamente mi Informe 2004/2005, los evaluadores que siendo subsidiados por la Agencia rechazaron dicho Informe fueron diez (10) Investigadores sobre un total de dieciocho (18) o más de la mitad de la Comisión, siendo los mismos: Guillermo Ángel Velázquez, Nidia Areces, Daniel Enzo Olivera, Marta Mercedes Maffia, Laura Lucia Miotti, Héctor Carlos Vázquez, Bibiana Leonor Vilá, María Isabel Hernández Llosas y Gustavo Adolfo Martínez; (Reunión de 6 y 9 de mayo de 2008, Exp.No.2209/06); y d) en la Comisión que decidió constituirse en mi árbitro evaluador para el tribunal requerido por el art.41 del Estatuto del CONICET, han actuado como evaluadores --sin haberse hasta el momento excusado-- ocho (8) Investigadores subsidiados por la Agencia sobre un total de veintidós (22) o la tercera parte de la Comisión, siendo los mismos: Ana Inés Ferreyra, Luis Alberto Borrero, Roberto Cittadini, Mónica Beatriz Lacarrieu, Cristina Ofelia Valenzuela y nuevamente los Investigadores G. A. Martínez, Maffia, y Miotti (Reunión de abril de 2009, Exp.2209/06).

Fuente: CONICET, Leg.00913; Exp.No. 3987/04; Exp.No.2209/06)

Anexo-II

Integrantes de la Comisión de Historia y Antropología del CONICET distribuidos por disciplinas científicas (2002-2009)

Los integrantes de la Comisión de Historia y Antropología del CONICET agrupada por disciplinas científicas, fueron los siguientes: a) en la Comisión que rechazó el Informe 2002-2003 estuvieron presentes sólo siete (7) miembros titulares que fueron historiadores (Cristina Bellelli, Daniel Campi, Mabel N. Cernadas de Bulnes, Ana Inés Ferreyra, Ariel Omar Guiance, Daniel Macor y Silvia Ospital) sobre un total de diecinueve (19) (Reunión del 6 de agosto de 2004, Leg.00913); b) en la que desestimó mi pedido de reconsideración por el rechazo del Informe 2002-2003, sólo nueve (9) fueron historiadores (Ana María Presta, Cristina Bellelli, Cristian Rainiero Buchrucker, Daniel Campi, Ariel Omar Guiance, Silvia Beatriz Lazzaro, Daniel Macor, Aurora Ravina, Beatriz Solveira) sobre un total de veintiuno (21) (Reunión del 11 de agosto de 2005, Exp.No. 3987/04); c) en la Comisión que rechazó el Informe 2004-2005, estuvieron presentes sólo cuatro (4) historiadores (Nidia Areces, María Isabel Seoane, Cristian Buchrucker, Ana Inés Ferreyra) sobre un total de veintidos (22) apenas una quinta parte (Reunión de 6 y 9 de mayo de 2008, Exp.No.2209/06); y d) en la Comisión formada en 2009 para el art.41 estuvieron presentes sólo cuatro (4) historiadores (Ana Inés Ferreyra, Silvia Beatriz Lazzaro, Nelly Ongay, Ana Alejandra Teruel) sobre un total de veintidós (22) Investigadores, menos del 20% (Reunión de abril de 2009, Exp.2209/06); y en la suma total de evaluadores que dictaminaron sobre mis Informes en el CONICET (que fueron 64), se dieron: entre otros una etnóloga, un sociólogo, una etno-historiadora, dos (2) biólogos, cinco (5) geógrafos, una decena (10) de arqueólogos, una veintena (20) de antropólogos, y sólo una quincena (15) de historiadores, apenas la quinta parte del total.

Fuente: CONICET, Leg.00913; Exp.No. 3987/04; Exp.No.2209/06)


Anexo-III

Detalle de los subsidios otorgados por la Agencia a los miembros de la Comisión de Historia y Antropología del CONICET que evaluaron los Informes del suscripto (apellidos, fechas, montos y códigos de expedientes) (2000-2008)

El detalle de los subsidios otorgados por la Agencia a los miembros de la Comisión de Historia y Antropología del CONICET antes de las dictámenes negativos a mi respecto (fechas, montos y códigos de expedientes), fue el siguiente: a) la etnóloga Alejandra Siffredi (en el CONICET dos subsidios: PIP Nº 02275, plurianual, 2002-2005; y PIP Nº 5572, 2005-2008; y en 2005 el Proyecto de Investigación en Ciencia y Técnica (PICT 04-12247); b) el geógrafo Guillermo Ángel Velázquez (el PICTR2002-00081); c) el sociólogo Roberto Cittadini el PICT 04-09371 por un monto de $40.000; d) la bióloga Bibiana Leonor Vilá (el PICT 99 Foncyt, por un monto de $101.000); e) el arqueólogo Roberto Joaquín Bárcena (PICT-2003-14463 por un monto total de $76.563); f) seis (6) antropólogos: Edgardo J. Cordeu (el PICT-BID 98 N° 04-04400 y un subsidio de más de $400.000 para una investigación ¿antropológica? sobre el golpe de estado de 1966); Héctor Carlos Vázquez (el PICT-2000-2001, bajo el código 04-09951, por un monto de $83.000; y el PICT-2005, código 32917, por un monto de $102.000; Sonia Edith Colantonio (el PICT-2002, bajo el código 04-12494 por un monto total de $97.821); Mónica Beatriz Lacarrieu (el PICT-38345 del 2005, por un monto total de $202.000); Guillermo Luis Mengoni Goñalons (PICT-2003 bajo el código 04-14425); Daniel Enzo Olivera (el PICT-2002, 04-12098; y el PICT-2004, bajo el código 26023 por $199.302); y g) sólo cinco (5) historiadores: Ariel Omar Guiance (el PICT-2002, bajo el código 04-11272); Daniel Campi (en el 2002 el PICT 04-13099 por $135. 938); Cristina Bellelli (en el año 2000 el PICT 04-09976 por $93.000 y en 2004 otro PICT por $203.000); Ana Inés Ferreyra (el PICT-26023 del 2004 por $129.925); y Nidia Areces (el PICT-2002, bajo el código 329). Y el detalle de los subsidios otorgados con posterioridad a sus dictámenes negativos fue el siguiente: a) la geógrafa Cristina Ofelia Valenzuela un PICT en 2005 bajo el código 32.788 y otro PICT en 2006 bajo el código 21055; b) la especialista en arte rupestre María Isabel Hernández Llosas otro PICT bajo el código 00538b; c) seis (6) antropólogos Francisco Raúl Carnese (el PICT-2004, bajo el código 26077); Mabel Grimberg otro PICT en 2007 bajo el código 00230 por $160.000; Héctor Carlos Vázquez un PICT en 2004 bajo el código 04-09951 por un monto de $102.000; y la funcionaria del INADI Marta Mercedes Maffia un subsidio que alcanzó los $210.000; d) seis (6) arqueólogos: Osvaldo Mendonca un PICT en 2005 bajo el código 32807 por un total de $207.000; Mónica Salemme otro PICT en 2005 bajo el código 05-38096 por un monto total de $205.000; Luis Alberto Borrero un PICT en 2006 bajo el código 02046 por un monto de $197.600; y otro más reciente bajo el código 04-9498 BID 1728 y por un monto de $75.000; Laura Lucia Miotti un PICT en 2004 bajo el código 04-12387 por un monto de $69.541; y en 2006 otro PICT bajo el código 01552 por un monto total de $210.000; Eduardo E. Berberian (el PICT-2008-1551); y Gustavo Adolfo Martínez otro PICT en 2006 bajo el código 00264 por un monto total de $209.358; y e) sólo tres (3) historiadores: Beatriz Solveira un PICT en 2006 bajo el código 01281; Cristian Rainerio Buchrucker (el PICT-2007-02107-03); y Ana María Presta un PICT en 2006 bajo el código 01056, y en 2008 otro PICT bajo el código 2104 por un monto total de $158.115.

Fuente: Listados de Operatorias de la Agencia o ANPCYT

www.er-saguier.org

agrega un comentario