2023-12-19 14:01:00
Last Thursday, during his hearing before the Chamber of Appeal of the Walloon Parliament, his message was clear: he wanted to put an end to the disciplinary procedure launched once morest him by his employer, the Office of the Walloon Assembly. And which might lead to an automatic resignation.
Me Bourtembourg, lawyer for Palement Wallon, was present at the press conference. “Everything is false,” he will whisper. ©EdA Mathieu Golinvaux
This time, he argues and unfolds the grievances, to better deconstruct them. “Even the elements that we don’t blame him for,” Mr. Bourtembourg, the Parliament’s lawyer, would later be surprised. “Everything is false. It is exclusively the truth of the clerk, but perhaps not the truth of the file,” he will add.
Alongside his lawyer Pierre Joassart, Frédéric Janssens reiterates that he never went off the rails. “I have always acted in compliance with the rules and in the interest of the Walloon Parliament.” Public contracts or expenses for real estate projects, all the rules have been respected, he insists.
He recognizes hiccups only in personnel management. He thus wants to admit that he might have “committed errors of assessment and discernment”. He regrets, he assures. “I do not deny having lacked empathy, having had words or behaviors that were felt negatively by some.” He even apologizes to those he “offended or disappointed”.
“But from there to making me a scapegoat, an expiatory victim of one and the other, there is an extent, even an infinity which is totally incomprehensible and shocking.”
We take back.
1. “Toxic” management
Around ten complaints of moral harassment were recorded at the Namur labor prosecutor’s office. “I don’t have access to the whole file. I’ve seen two,” he said. But, according to him and according to his lawyer, there is nothing left in his disciplinary file regarding moral harassment.
And he suggests, as he had already done in March, that all this discontent which has been coming from the registry for a little over 18 months “coincides” with the project to change the statuses (including the end of early access to early retirement for agents under his responsibility).
However, certain witnesses paint a portrait of a “Janssens system”, which goes beyond the “error of discernment”, and this already at a period prior to this famous change of status.
Nevertheless, the duo’s conclusion is clear: “My client is no longer being prosecuted for acts of harassment, underlines Mr. Joassart. The Office considers that these elements are not sufficiently established and is not prosecuting.”
What Me Bourtembourg, who therefore represents the Bureau of the Walloon Parliament, is far from confirming: “The Bureau does not have the documents and is not in a position to take a position. But the elements have not been deleted from the file” .
2. Recorded death threats
“I never threatened anyone with death and I never hoped for anyone to die,” he says. In a recording, however, we hear Frédéric Janssens uttering phrases which suggest the opposite. He even mentioned on the set of LN24 “a man-to-man conversation”.
Does he remember it or not? “I remember several exchanges with this person, which go beyond the relationship between an employee and his superior,” he says, without venturing further. “I want to hear this recording first to validate what was said, in context.”
The recording was submitted by the agent concerned in its entirety to the labor prosecutor’s office in October 2022.
3. Personal expenses
“I am accused of various purchases on Parliament’s account.” Toll fees, travel costs, computer equipment? “Legal.” He bought three briefcases a few days before his suspension at Parliament’s expense? “Carrying documents is useful and justified. And I handed over to Parliament without delay all the requested material.”
The astronomical phone bill (€25,000) in Costa Rica? “3.3 gigabytes of data used to manage parliamentary files. This invoice was carefully hidden for 7 years. It’s regrettable. Especially since we had other problematic roaming invoices which were settled with the operator,” he said.
The attentive ear of the Office, Mr. Bourtembourg, at the entrance to the room. ©EdA Mathieu Golinvaux
Work carried out in one of his houses by a driver, during his “parliamentary” time? “False! All the invoices have been produced. Drivers have certainly provided me with small services so that I can devote myself to my task.” But nothing compares, he slips, with what is sometimes asked of a parliamentary assistant.
Missions abroad in luxurious conditions? “Useful and justified.” The “luxurious conditions” part would have been abandoned in the Office’s complaints, according to him.
Generally speaking, all documents related to representation expenses were justified, he maintains. “And they barely reach 60% of what the Bureau allowed.”
4. Public procurement
From the outset, the clerk’s lawyer clarifies that his client is not responsible for the award of contracts. “But the rules were respected. Obviously, we can still go to European markets to buy 50 bics…”
The dubious IT market, which is the subject of a criminal investigation: “Certainly, the bidder had contributed to the drafting of the specifications, which the law does not prohibit, provided that the conditions of equality between bidders are guaranteed. Which was respected.” He nevertheless reports an exchange of hidden emails within his services. So not only was he not the one making the deals, but his agents were doing things behind his back.
5. House of Parliamentarians and pedestrian junction
He would have let the costs soar, under cover of the delegation of power he has, to let the costs of these two real estate markets soar. “Since 2019, the Office has been notified of these costs 11 times for the pedestrian junction and 17 times for the parliamentarians’ house.”
The Bureau knew everything, he insists. Would the needs have been poorly defined? “There is a 27-page technical study note. That did not prevent the Bureau itself from asking for changes,” he says. Like the semi-buried committee room.
And in the end, he says, the best attestation of the legality of its management is that “all the accounts from 2009 to 2021 have been cleared”.
If Frédéric Janssens assures that he has not crossed any red line, the Office has, according to him, at least demonstrated “questionable impartiality”. It aligns 6 names of deputies with the 7 who make up the management body of Parliament, with their respective declarations, sometimes innocuous, made to the press.
For the clerk, this is undoubtedly one of the essential levers to dispose of this disciplinary file as he wishes. Since all of the arguments presented have already been refuted by the Office, according to Me Jean Bourtembourg.
1703009473
#Clerk #Walloon #Parliament #rules #respected #Office #knew
