Monitoring Anticorruption Policies – Summary
Within the Working Group for monitoring the National Strategy for Preventing and Combating Corruption, Transparency International - Moldova monitored four public institutions (Main State Fiscal Inspectorate, Ministry of Information Technology and Communications, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family) in the context of implementing the following public anticorruption policies:
- Creating an internal corruption prevention mechanism;
- Improving the quality of institutional webpages;
- Ensuring transparency of the public procurement procedures;
- Ensuring the activity of the hotlines;
- Increasing the efficacy of the petitioning system;
- Improving the declaration of incomes and assets by public servants;
- Conducting conflict of interests policies;
- Ensuring the institutional corruption risk self-assessment;
- Ensuring transparency of staff recruitment procedures.
The above mentioned policies have a permanent character and are part of the 2005-2010 Action Plans for the implementation of the National Strategy for the Preventing and Combating Corruption. However, practice shows that none of the monitored institutions applies the corruption preventive policies in their complexity.
The advantage of the methodology applied in the monitoring process is that once being adopted, it can be extended over other central and local public authorities.
The activities were conducted as part of the project “Monitoring the implementation of the National Anticorruption Strategy”, founded by the Soros Foundation - Moldova and the Partnership for Transparency Fund. The opinions expressed in this report reflect the position of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the founding institutions.
The main conclusions and proposals formulated in the result of the monitoring process are as follows:
Creating an internal corruption prevention mechanism
The results of the monitoring have shown that the person responsible for the prevention of corruption among central public authorities (CPA) was either not appointed, or appointed on a position lower than the deputy-minister/deputy director level required by Government Decision (GD) nr.615/2005. At the same time, in some institutions, the mechanism established by GD nr.615/2005 to prevent corruption and protectionism, appears to be confused with the institutional risk self-assessment mechanism instituted through GD nr.906/2008. Measures taken by the persons responsible for preventing corruption in the monitored institutions are limited to collecting information from the population (via anonymous petitions, hotlines) and providing trainings for staff and clients.
Recommendations regarding the implementation of the mechanism for preventing corruption based on GD nr.615/2005:
• Assign persons in charge for preventing corruption and protectionism in all CPAs, as foreseen by GD nr.615/2005; provide trainings for these persons;
• Revise GD nr.615/2005: extend the circle of subjects to which its provisions apply and include entities subordinated to the CPAs; establish a reporting procedure (including the obligation to report, the reporting form and a deadline); place the reports on the institution’s web-site;
• Empower the person responsible for preventing corruption in the CPA (GD nr.615/2005) with the supervision of the implementation of integrity plans elaborated based on the corruption risks self-assessment (GD nr.906/2007).
The quality of the hotline activity
The interpretation of GD nr. 615/2005 on the establishment of hotlines differed among CPAs, from those with well-functioning lines operating in a live regime, to those using automatic answering machines, and finally those with inoperative/dead telephone lines.
The application of the mysterious client technique revealed that the telephone line of one of the monitored authorities that claims to have received 10 to 15 daily calls and describes a wide range of issues unrelated to corruption that citizens address, is actually a dead telephone line (Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family - MLSPF). Another monitored authority claims not to have received any calls, while in fact its hotline was connected to an automatic answering machine (Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications - MITC). Two of the four monitored authorities have functional telephone lines (Main State Fiscal Inspectorate - MSFI Department of Internal Security and Ministry of Education - MEd Legal Department), working with a relatively high efficiency. None of the monitored authorities indicated cases of forwarding the information received via hotline to the competent agencies empowered to combat corruption, such as the CCECC.
Recommendations regarding the use of trusted phone lines:
• Elaborate and adopt the Regulation on the activity of the hotline that includes provisions on: obligations and responsibilities of the hotline operators, norms related to the relations with the public, clauses on recording appeals, transmitting the information to other bodies, penalties for unreported complaints to the competent bodies/persons;
• Provide continuous trainings for the hotline operators;
• Extend the means of informing the public on the activity of the hotlines;
• Create a unique database for the periodical generalization of information on the activity of the hotlines (E-Governance);
• Extend internal control over the activity of the hotlines.
The efficiency of the petition examining system
The monitored institutions have generally recorded and examined the petitions, and have subsequently informed the petitioners on their results and resolutions.
One observation is that these institutions lack a proper filing system. Some of them stored the petition documents in unmarked folders and cardboard boxes. Others stacked the documents in a single pile with no classification, motivating this action by the lack of filing folders (MLSPF). The MEd only recorded and kept the petitions coming from the Office of the President, the Parliament and the State Chancellery, and forwarded the rest of the petitions to ministry employees. Some of these employees only kept track of the answer notes, and not of the actual petitions. These actions are in controversy with the normative acts in force, which forbid keeping the examined petitions and materials accumulated on the case by staff members.
The following should be noted among the general problems in the functioning of the public authorities petitioning system:
• Lack of information on addressing a petition;
• Non-assignment of a person responsible for the petitioning activity;
• Low transparency in the petitioning system;
• Insufficient knowledge of the legislation by clerks and petitioners.
The following infringements were found in the petition examination process: registration of crime denunciations as petitions, forwarding complaints to the clerk that the petitioner complained about, failure to forward corruption case denunciations to the competent institutions, examination at the central level of minor problems that should be solved at a local level.
Shortcomings and imperfections can also be found in the Law on Petitioning, especially in the context of transparency of the petitioning system, preventing the abuse of the petitioning system, surveillance of implementing the legislation, protection of the petitioners and whistleblowers.
Recommendations regarding the efficiency of the petition examining service:
• Modify and complete the petitioning legislation. Particularly, introduce clauses regarding the modalities of addressing petitions, assigning the persons responsible for ensuring transparency in the functioning of the petitioning system, extending the internal control over this system, preventing the abuse of the petitioning system, supervising the implementation of legislation, etc.
• Ensure the recovery of damages caused;
• Enforce the practice of handing over petitions that state criminal infringements to the competent bodies;
• Provide trainings for clerks and legal education for the population;
• Adopt the Law on whistleblower protection.
Declaration of incomes and assets by public servants
The monitoring process has shown that the declaration of incomes and properties is not a question to which authorities wanted to submit complete information. Only the MSFI has presented the requested information entirely, the MITC and MLSPF having offered partial information, while the MEd did not offer any data. The majority of the monitored institutions presented contradictory statistics regarding the declaration of incomes and assets by public servants. MLSPF and MITC admit the existence of considerable discrepancies between the number of statements that were supposed to be received and those that have actually been submitted. Although art.10 paragraph 4 of Law nr.1264/2002 foresees a compulsory submission to the CCECC of cases where signs of infringements are found, the respective authorities report an absence of infringements.
The practice of verifying the income and property statements proves the importance of having direct access to the database of the body in charge of preliminary control of declarations, because only in this case control can be efficient. In fact, a systemic nonfunctional mechanism is created: the authority that has access to specialized databases (CCECC) can only intervene at the request of the body that lacks access to such information; thus, being unable to identify eventual wrongful declarations or other infringements.
Recommendations regarding the implementation of income and property declaration :
• Revise Law nr.1264-XV of 19.07.2002 to:
o exclude the clause on confidentiality of declarations;
o establish the obligation to post the declarations of incomes and property for all categories of officials/public servants on the websites of public authorities or specialized body in charge of controlling the declarations;
o introduce a clause on the partial reversal of the burden of proving the legality of provenience of property in cases when considerable discrepancies between incomes and property are identified (taking into consideration that, according to the Constitution of Moldova, the provenience of any property is assumed to be legal).
• Complete the Criminal Code to stipulate criminal responsibility for illegal enrichment;
• Empower CCECC with the ability to conduct random controls of income and property statements of CPAA and LPA representatives; include CCECC participation in the preliminary stages of income and property statement verifications in public institutions;
• Create and maintain a database of all income and property declarations to facilitate the control process (E-Governance);
• Make the person/subdivision in charge of preventing corruption responsible for not penalizing the public servant that avoided to submit, or distorted the income and property declaration.
Policy on Conflict of Interest
The MEd has avoided answering questions regarding the implementation of the policy on conflict of interest; MLSPF has mentioned the failure to execute the legal framework without offering any explanation, while the MSFI and MITC have mentioned the absence of a Main Ethics Committee and the model of the statement of interests that needed to be adopted. The attitude of the monitored authorities proves, on one hand, ignorance towards their legal obligations and on the other hand, lack of knowledge of legal provisions. The ignorance of provisions to Law nr. 16/2008 is also observed in the avoidance to answer questions on the implementation of the law.
Recommendations on treating and solving conflicts of interest:
• Carry out a strict Government control over the implementation of Law nr.16-XVI from 15.02.2008 regarding conflict of interest and inform the respective legal commission of the Parliament of Moldova on the results of this control;
• Speed-up the application of the mechanism to implement Law nr.16-XVI from15.02.2008; launch the National Integrity Commission; elaborate and adopt the model of personal interest declaration and the declaration of conflict of interest; initiate the process of declaration;
• Extend the internal control process in public authorities over the domains of public ethics and conflict of interest;
• Familiarize employers with the provisions of the Code of conduct and the Law on conflict of interest; elaborate and publish instructions/guides on conflict of interest policies;
• Document conflict of interest statements and register the actions taken;
• Create and maintain a database of all interests and conflict of interest declarations to facilitate abidance with Law nr.16-XVI from 15.02.2008 (E-Governance);
• Make the internal control unit responsible for not penalizing public servants that did not submit and/or distorted the data in the declaration of interests and conflict of interest;
• Promote the Code of conduct and the conflict of interest policy among public authorities, and ensure transparency in the process.
Conducting institutional corruption risk self-assessment
Two out of four monitored authorities presented information on their corruption risks self-assessment (MITC and MLSPF). MEd did not offer any concrete information, while the MSFI is a subdivision of a central public authority and therefore, is not obliged to conduct such an assessment according to GD. 906/2008. As for the implementation of GD.906/2008 by the two authorities that have offered data, it was found that the process of self-assessment was launched just recently, after two and a half years since the GD entered into force. Thus, the MITC has created the self-assessment group by the minister order nr.59c from 23.04.2010, while the MLSPF – by minister order nr.129-p from 08.04.2010. Meanwhile, the deadline for the self-assessment nearly expired.
MITC and MLSPF have offered details regarding the development of the self-evaluation process, yet none of these authorities has finalized the process, nor offered information on the self-assessment report and the institutional integrity plan.
Recommendations regarding the implementation of the mechanism of corruption risk self-assessment
• Extend the area of GD.906/2008 application over institutions subordinated to specialized central public authorities to cover fields with increased vulnerability to corruption, such as fiscal inspectorate, customs service, and others;
• Exert strict control by the Government over the implementation of GD.906/2008;
• Place the institutional corruption risks self-assessment documents and integrity plans on the institutions’ websites.
Ensuring transparency of staff recruitment procedures
The subject of public servant recruitment transparency is also not entirely transparent. Thus, the MEd avoided giving any answers to questions regarding this policy framework, while the MITC and the MPSF have only offered partial answers. MSFI answered all questions connected to this policy framework. According to the TI-Moldova survey, in 2009 a considerable share of staff members from the monitored institutions considered employment based on family or friendly relations a reality (60% of MSFI respondents, 52% of MITC and MLSPF and 40% in MEd). The perceptions regarding non-meritocratic promotions are similarly high (52% in MSFI, 40% – MITC and ME and 41% – MLSPF).
Regarding to the application of the legal framework on incompatibilities and restrictions, none of the monitored authorities indicated dismissals operated on this basis, even though the perception of employment based on family relations seemed to be widely spread. As for the access to information on job openings and results of applicant interviews, only the Main State Fiscal Inspectorate mentioned the placement of announcements in this regard on its official webpage in a special section, posting announcements on the announcement panel and publishing them in the Official Monitor magazine. The other monitored authorities (MITC, MEd and MLSPF) have avoided answering this section.
Recommendations regarding the transparency of staff recruitment procedures
• Enforce the posting of job openings on the website and other public-accessible places;
• Establish control over the compliance with the regime of incompatibilities and post-employment restrictions (through the National Integrity Commission).
Improving the quality of institutional webpages
Monitoring has shown that public authorities have webpages that, to a large extent, function in accordance with the regulatory framework. However, the insufficiency and even absence of some information, as well as lack of updates on data regarding the activity of public authorities (PA), must be noted:
- essentially all monitored public authorities have incomplete or even lack data on the objectives and functions of their subdivisions: in the case of MEd , 9 out of 14 central apparatus subdivisions do not indicate their objectives and functions; at the MLSPF – 12 out of 20; MITC – the objectives and functions of subdivisions are included, however, they are not updated according to MITC Regulations approved by GD nr.389 from 17.05.2010; MSFI – the objectives and functions of the fiscal bodies are indicated, while those of its subdivisions are missing;
- none of the monitored public authorities published budget planning and execution for 2010-2011 on their website;
- two of the monitored public authorities (MEd and MLSPF) missed the information on the modality to submit petitions;
- information about public procurement bids is presented at a minimum, in particular: the annual procurement plans for all of the monitored authorities are missing; decisions on selecting companies in the bid are missing in all except the MSFI;
- public authorities did not publish the results of their controls/audits on the websites (some basic information on the internal audit missions were published by the MSFI in the 2010 activity report);
- public authorities did not include information on anticorruption activity on their webpages. This includes data on people in charge of corruption prevention, anticorruption activity plans and reports on accomplishments;
- two public authorities (MEd, MITC) have not posted on their websites data on programs/projects they benefit from, and receive technical assistance from.
Recommendations to improve the quality of institutional webpages:
• Warn public authorities about their obligation to place information on the webpage, continuously update it, and ensure access to archives in accordance with legal provisions;
• Extend the list of compulsory information to be placed on the webpage, as stipulated by GD nr. 668 from 19.06.2006 with the following data:
- anti-corruption activities (actions planned, actual measures taken by the public authority, the person in charge for the prevention of corruption);
- data on public procurement (the annual plan of public procurement, public service announcements in the profile of goods/services/works, press releases concerning the award of public service contracts);
- results of the internal and external control/audit missions performed at the public authority (Court of Accounts decisions regarding the results of audits performed) and information on measures taken to correct errors identified during the external and internal audit missions;
- specification of data regarding the means of submitting petitions: the normative act that regulates this process in the institution, the person/subdivision in charge and their contact information, offering the possibility to send petitions in electronic form.
• Facilitate the search and use of data from the webpages of public authorities by:
- Establishing a common website structure;
- Creating distinct sections on the websites regarding contacts with the public authorities and subordinated institutions; hotline; means of petitioning; appointed meetings, services offered (with the indication of the price list, the body that approved it and the date of approval); application and request models;
• Examine the opportunity to pass the attribution to administer the webpages of public authorities to a separate entity, such as E-Governance.
Ensuring transparency of the public procurement process
On the institutional webpages, information on public procurement is presented at a minimal level. There is a gap in the annual plans for public procurement with all monitored authorities, the procurement announcements are not permanent, some authorities do not have an archive of past announcements, and data on the attribution of public purchase contracts are missing.
Proposals to ensure transparency of the public procurement process:
Extend the list of compulsory information to be placed on the website, stipulated by GD nr. 668 from 19.06.2006 with data on public procurement (the annual plan of public procurement, announcements on public bids in the profile of goods/services/works, communiqués regarding the attribution of public procurement contracts).
Carrying out express surveys of beneficiaries: Main State Fiscal Inspectorate (MSFI), Ministry of Information Technology and Communication (MITC) and the Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family (MLSPF)
The surveys were carried out with the support of the Soros Foundation in Moldova and the Partnership for Transparency Foundation. The purpose of these surveys was to evaluate the opinion of respondents regarding the quality of services provided, the professionalism and integrity of the employers of the monitored authorities and the existence of eventual cases of corruption. The results show positive points and evolution in the activity of monitored institutions. However, a number of problems have also been identified.
MSFI: Compared to 2008, the survey was conducted in a shorter period, the respondents were more open and available to expose the objections and proposals regarding the activity of the fiscal inspectorates. The majority of the respondents were fully or partially satisfied with the information from the fiscal inspectorates; their share has risen compared to 2008. About half of the legal entities interviewed noticed that during the last year, the activity of the fiscal inspectorates has improved. There was an increase in the share of respondents that highly appreciate the level of the MSFI employee professionalism, as well as of the ones who highly qualify the quality of MSFI services.
The following was mentioned in the list of objections: high cost of sending electronic reports; low work speed and errors admitted by MSFI employees when inserting the reports in the database; sanctioning companies for banking errors during money transfers; impolite attitude of MSFI employees; long lines at inspectorates at the end of the fiscal year; unsatisfactory conditions for visitors inside the office of MSFI.
The following were listed as recommendations: simplification of company reporting systems; extension of the list of reports presented in electronic format; increase in the number of internet based MSFI services; reduction of the cost of electronic reports presentation; cautioning banks on the necessity to exclude errors when transferring taxes and increase in their responsibility.
MITC: The survey was performed at the exits from the Departments for documenting means of transportation and the Department for the documentation of auto vehicle drivers from the Chisinau municipality, subdivisions of the “Registru” State Enterprise reporting to the MITC. The results of the survey have shown that 90% of respondents have fully or partially solved their problems; almost 80% of respondents were satisfied by the level of information offered by the institution. More than half of the people interviewed have highly appreciated the level of politeness, while 60% the high level of professionalism of the institution employers.
Among objections, the respondents have specified: high prices for services offered by the “Registru” State Enterprise; errors admitted by employees during the preparation of documents; insufficient information on the information panels inside the Department for the documentation of auto vehicle drivers; discriminative attitude of some of this Department’s employees towards the persons taking the practical driving tests; long lines at the banks inside the departments for the documentation of transport means; long period of providing services to remove the vehicle from mortgage or sequester, etc.
The recommendations included: extending the area of informing citizens, including via internet; increasing the speed of service, especially through the expansion of the on-line services; preventing errors when preparing certificates; opening territorial offices for the documentation of auto vehicle drivers and means of transport in districts; supervising the employers of the Department for documenting auto vehicle drivers during the practical driving exam in order to prevent abuses and discriminatory attitude; improving wait-time and conditions for visitors.
MLSPF: The survey was carried out at the Republican Council for the Medical Expertise of Vitality (subdivision of the MLSPF) and three primary Councils for the Medical Expertise of Vitality (CMEV) of the Chisinau Municipality. The survey results show that the majority of respondents have fully solved their problems with the attribution of the degree of disability, and the issuing or extension of sick leave certificates. Almost half of the respondents have highly appreciated the level of professionalism and politeness of institution employees. Approximately 2/3 of the respondents have stated that the quality of offered services is medium and low.
Although respondents mentioned a number of positive aspects in the activity of the institutions, they also indicated multiple negative aspects: poor waiting conditions inside the primary medical commissions, high level of bureaucracy, insufficient information for the public, decreased working speed, impolite attitude of the staff. Each sixth respondent specified a situation when employees of the institution made hints/proposed to solve issues unofficially in exchange of services, gifts or money.
The following were described as recommendations: providing decent conditions for disabled people in primary councils (access ramps, chairs, drinking water, air conditioners, accessible toilets); creating CMEVs in some hospitals, especially in the Oncology Institute; providing primary CMEV with equipment for disabled people; promoting the Code of ethics in the CMEV and controlling abidance to it; improving CMEV’s logistics; creating an efficient mechanism to place disabled persons on the labor market.