The Court of Auditors in 2019 faced difficulties related to the fluctuation of employees, the number of persons with work experience of less than two years at the institution being significant. Transparency International – Moldova (TI), which compiled the report “Court of Auditors: Alternative Institutional Assessment”, suggested that an appropriate staff policy should be pursued so as to make the institution’s employees loyal and to reduce staff fluctuation.
In a news conference at IPN, Mariana Kalughin, Transparency International – Moldova expert, said the Court of Auditors is perceived as an authority with reduced independence. This is primarily due to the legal framework that provides that the president of the Court of Auditors is named by Parliament for a five-year term, at the suggestion of the Speaker, based on a public contest, with a majority of votes of MP. The other members are appointed by Parliament for a five-year term at the suggestion of the institution’s president based on a public contest, with a majority of votes of MP. The vice president of the Court of Auditors is named by Parliament at the suggestion of the Court’s president, from among its members.
According to TI, the provisions are not sufficiently developed so that these contest procedures are credible and offer more legitimacy to the members of the Court of Auditors. Mariana Kalughin said it is important to stipulate by law at least basic elements as regards the contest procedures: who stages the contest, based on what regulations, who woks these out and approves them, what are the time limits for the organization and holding of contests.
Mariana Kalughin noted the institution cares about institutional integrity, drafted and approved a code of ethics and a number of normative documents that are designed to ensure institutional integrity. However, the perceptions existing in society show the integrity incidents should be treated appropriately and dealt with.
As to responsibility, Parliament plays a passive role in ensuring the accountability of the Court of Auditors. This is due to the Speaker’s refusal to examine the Court of Auditors’ reports in Parliament made by the responsible commission. All the necessary measures should be taken to ensure the external audit of the Court’s financial reports for 2019 and 2020.
Things concerning transparency stand much better. Even so, the official website of the Court of Auditors could be essentially completed with data about the personnel, personnel policy, employment procedures, qualifications needed for applying for the vanities. The anticorruption module is not sufficiently developed. The website should contain a module on decisional transparency.
As regards efficiency, the regulations governing the work of the Council of Cooperation between the Court of Auditors and the law enforcement bodies should be revised so that it efficiently contributes to identifying, notifying and punishing frauds and acts of corruption.
Transparency International – Moldova suggests the Court of Auditors to pursue a suitable staff policy so as to make the personnel loyal, to develop the law on the organization and functioning of the Court of Auditors of the Republic of Moldova with regard to the holding of the contest for filling the posts of Court member, to finish the integrity self-assessment process by approving and implementing an internal integrity plan and to have the Court’s reports examined in Parliament. The report also contains other recommendations.
The report “Court of Auditors: Alternative Institutional Assessment” was produced with the financial support of the Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Section of the U.S. Embassy in Chisinau.
