Survey ci 2013 eng by TI-Moldova

MOLDOVA

Results of civil servants survey on the implementation of conflict of interest policies in central public authorities Transparency International – Moldova (TI – Moldova) conducted a survey of civil servants from 21 central public administration authorities 1 (CPA) within the Project „Engaging Civil Society in Monitoring Conflict of Interest Policies” funded by the European Commission2. The purpose of the survey is to analyze how the CPAs apply a number of anti-corruption policies, including: addressing conflicts of interest, promoting ethical conduct, merit-based promotion of staff, operation of the petition system and hot-lines. The survey analyzed the CPA employee familiarity with the legal framework in the field (in particular the Law no. 16/2008 on Conflict of Interest and Law no.25/2008 on the Civil Servants’ Code of Conduct); practice of declaring personal interests and conflicts of interest (CI); respondents opinions vis-a- vis some operational aspects of the institution they work for: subdivisions with a high risk of CI occurrence, objectivity and transparency of staff hiring/promotion process, existence of corruption, existence of some unfair policies in the authorities activity, their politicization; willingness of employees to denounce corruption, etc. In addition to that, given TI- Moldova conducting surveys related to the CI treatment policy in previous years, including 20123, changes in the implementation of this policy have been analyzed. The interviews were based on a questionnaire that gave the respondents the opportunity to choose the correct version of the answer from several options, as well as to express their views/suggestions on anti-corruption policies applied. During the survey, 769 people were interviewed or about 30 percent of the total employees of the stated authorities4. Respondents were selected from the lists of CPA staff in the presence of the representatives of human resources departments, with a particular step in order to ensure the representativeness of the survey. It is noteworthy that when interviewing some CPAs, some non-shortlisted people participated, the invitation to the survey being conducted by the representatives of human resources departments. The survey was conducted during November – December 2013. Public authority

Number of interviewed Share in total staff, % people

Ministry of Economy

Ministry of Finance

Main State Tax Inspectorate

Customs Service (Central Apparatus)

Customs Service (Chisinau Customs Office)

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Internal Affairs

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration

Ministry of Defense

Ministry of Regional Development and Construction

Ministry of Economy (MEC); Ministry of Finance (MF); Main State Tax Inspectorate (MSTI); Customs Service, Central Apparatus(SV AC); Customs Service, Chisinau Customs Office (SV BV Ch); Ministry of Justice (MJ); Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA); Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration (MFAEI); Ministry of Defense (MD); Ministry of Regional Development and Construction (MRDC); Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI); Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure (MTRI); Ministry of Environment (ME); Ministry of Education (MEd); Ministry of Culture (MC); Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family (MLSPF); Ministry of Health (MH); Ministry of Information Technology and Communications (MITC); Ministry of Youth and Sport (MYS); Agency for Land Relations and Cadaster (ALRC); National Anti-corruption Center (NAC). 2 Project is implemented by TI-Moldova in partnership with NGOs in four countries: Armenia, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine. 3 Transparency International – Moldova, Results of civil servants survey on the implementation of conflict of interest policies in central public authorities, 2013, – http://www.transparency.md/content/blogcategory/16/48/lang,ro/ 4 Data on the personnel were provided by the representatives of the CPAs.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry

Ministry of Transport. and Road Infrastructure

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Culture

Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Information technology and Communications

Ministry of Youth and Sport

Agency for Land Relations and Cadaster

National Anti-Corruption Centre (Central Apparatus)

Total

769

The results of the survey are the following5:

I. Familiarity with the provisions of Law no.16/2008 on Conflict of Interest 1. What does „conflict of interests’ in public sector” mean? Share of respondents who indicated the correct response option was on average 92% and increased slightly (by about 4 percentage points (pp) compared to 2012.

APC profile information is reflected in the Annexes.

2. Do you think conflict of interests’ is corruption? Only one third of respondents answered the question correctly, their share increased compared to 2012 by about 4 percentage points. It is noteworthy that nearly 60% of respondents confuse CI with corruption. Do you think conflict of interests’ is corruption? Do not know 11%

No 32%

Yes 57%

3. Please give an example of personal interests As in previous years' surveys, a negative interpretation of the term „personal interest” is maintained, most respondents citing as examples of personal interests the violations of restrictions and incompatibilities, CI situations, as well as eventual cases of corruption, e.g.:  Use of the official car by the civil servant for personal purposes, use of the office equipment for private purposes;  The civil servant has a close relative under subordination;  criminal investigation officer is a relative to the person against whom a criminal proceeding was filed;  civil servant issues the authorization to a company, where he/she is a founder;  tax inspector detects irregularities in the company of his wife and conceals them;  civil servant concludes contracts with firms belonging to close relatives;  inspector notifies a close person about conducting an unannounced inspection;  civil servant accepts a reward/gift from the client.

4. Acceptability of the breach of restrictions/incompatibilities related t work in public service Compared to 2012, the share of respondents who consider unacceptable any violation of the restrictions and prohibitions established by law has increased significantly. An exception remains the post-employment restriction, about 30% of respondents considered acceptable this breach.

5. Do you think a public servant has the right to take a decision being in a conflict of interest situation? The vast majority of respondents (85%) believe it is correct that the civil servant is not entitled to make decisions in the situation of CI.

6. Ways of solving a conflict of interests situation? Being asked to choose the right option for resolving situations of conflict of interests, most of the interviewees chose the optimal solution, in particular: Example of situations

Selected option

% resp.

An inspector finds out that he/she will have to control a company conducted by his/her relative

the inspector will be substituted by another inspector to control this company

In local elections a person whose spouse is working as accountant in the City Hall was elected as Mayor

the spouse of the mayor will resign from the position in the city hall.

A Customâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s officer finds out that he has to inspect a track (car) driven by his brother

the Customs officer will be replaced in this control by another officer

In the Staff Evaluation Commission there is a request for promotion from one of the commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s members.

the public servant will not participate in this meeting of the commission

7. Respondents who correctly indicated the sanction provided by law for non-submission of declaration on personal interests, non-declaring CI and false statements. Although the average share of respondents who indicated the correct liability for this violation is low, this share grew compared to 20126, including thanks to publicizing the sanctions imposed by the National Integrity Commission in 2013.

8. How would you assess your knowledge about the treatment of conflict of interests situations? (self-assessment of the respondents on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means „I do not know anything at all”, 10 – „I know perfectly well”). The average self-assessment per CPA is of 7 points, similar to the situation of 2012.

II. Practice of filing declarations of personal interests and reporting on conflict of interest 9. Did you file a declaration of personal interests in 2013? 84% of respondents say they have filed declarations of personal interests in 2013, which is by about 25 pp more than in 2012.

In 2012, about 26% of respondents correctly indicated the sanctions for non-submission of personal interest, income and property declarations, and 17% - for failure to declare conflicts of interest.

10. If you did file a declaration of personal interests, what kind of declaration was that?

11. Whom did you file your declaration of interests with? (% of respondents who filed the declaration of interest) The majority of respondents (about 80%) have filed the declaration of personal interests to the person in charge for collecting the declarations of interests, according to the legislation, their share having increased with 21 pp compared to 2012.

12. Upon submitting your declaration of personal interests, have you been given a document confirming receipt of your declaration? Did you have to sign in a register? (% of respondents who filed the declaration of interest) The majority of respondents who declared their personal interests said they received a confirmation document (78%) and signed in the Register of Declarations (77%), their share having increased considerably compared to 2012 (with 24 pp and 13 pp respectively).

13. Did you ever have difficulties in filling in a declaration of this kind?

If YES, what were the problems/difficulties? 1/5 of respondents stating that they faced problems in filling in the declarations of interest specified them. Based on what was stated, we could observe that some respondents confused the declaration of interest with the declaration of income and property, because they invoked difficulties related to filling in the declarations of income and property. 14. Reporting conflicts of interests in 2013 88% of respondents mentioned that they did not report any conflict of interest in 2013, the situation being similar to 2012.

What difficulties have been faced when reporting conflicts of interest? The Law on conflict of interest does not provide for a model report/declaration on conflict of interest, the requirements towards document content being expressly established in Article 9 of the cited law. Based on the respondents' answers, we can assume that some confused reporting on conflicts of interest with the declaration of personal interests. 15. Does your job description include the mandatory requirement to declare conflicts of interests?

16. In your opinion, in which subdivision of your institution the risks of conflict of interests’ are the highest? The respondents, depending on the CPA, have invoked most frequently the following subdivisions:  ALRC: Land and Soil Protection Department, Agency Management, Real Estate Division;  NAC: General Directorate for Combating Corruption, Money Laundering Prevention and Combating Service, Management;  MSTI: Tax Compliance General Directorate, Management, Large Taxpayers Unit, Economic and Public Procurement Department;  MD: Economic and Financial Department, Human resource Management Department, General Inspection Department;  MFAEI: Ministry management, Ministerțs Office, Human Resources, Management and Logistics Department;  MIA: Administration and Development Policies Department, General Human Resources Department, General Legal Department;  MAFI: General Legal Department, Management, Finance and Budget Department;  MC: Directorate for cultural heritage and visual arts, Legal Department, Department of Professional Art, Art Education and Cultural Industries, Finance and Accounting Department;  MRDC: Management, Architecture, projection, Urbanism and Territorial Development Department, General Regional Development Department, Financial Department;

           

MEC: Administration Policies and Public Property Privatization Department, Management, General Department of Industrial and Competitiion Policies; MED: Ministry’s Management, General Economic and Financial Department, Human resources Department; MF: Management, State Treasury, Legal Department; ME: Finance and Accounting Department, Legal Department, Minister’s Office, with service status, Ministry’s management; MJ: Non-commercial Organizations Department, Apostil Department, Notary Department; MLSPF: Economic and Financial Department, Humanitarian Aid Division, Human Resource Division; MH: Management, Drugs and Medical Equipment Department, Medical Staff Management Department, Legal Department; MICT: Legal Department, Minister’s Office, Finance and Accounting Department; MTRI: Road Transport Department, Legal Department, Management; MYS: Professional Sport Department, Youth Programs Department, Management, Department of Sport Institutions and Sport for All; Customs Service Headquarters: Goods Valuation and Classification Department, Human Resources Management Department; Chisinau Customs Office: Management, Customs Revenues and Valuation Department, 3 Internal Chisinau Customs Posts (industrial), 4 Internal Chisinau Customs Posts (Cricova).

17 Are you aware of any case of conflict of interests that took place in 2013 in your institution? % of total respondents

18. Examples of conflict of interest situations that took place in CPA in 2013. Some respondents indicated concrete cases of conflicts of interest and how these were resolved (i.e., head of customs post had a son under his/her direct subordination, the son was transferred), others specified the areas where there were conflicts of interest (employment, public procurement, etc.). Among the examples, there are also cases of making decision /operations in a conflict of interest case, breach of incompatibilities, as well as eventual cases of corruption (e.g., bribery for the transfer of a prisoner from a foreign country into the Republic of Moldova).

19. Are there any post-employment restrictions for the personnel working for your institutions? % of total respondents

20. What are the post-employment restrictions for the employees of your institution? The examples invoked by the respondents show that, with some exceptions, the employees are not aware of this kind of restrictions. Examples of violations of post-employment restrictions by former employees of the institution. These examples confirm that the respondents do not know the specifics of these restrictions, signaling about other possible deviations: employment of people who do not have enough working experience / do not speak foreign languages; employment following preliminary agreements; restoring in office the people who previously took bribes etc. III. Policies on ethical norms promotion, staff promotion, operation of the petition system, hot-lines 21.1 Is there a Code of Conduct/Ethics for public servants?

21.2 Are you aware about any violations of the Code of Conduct/Ethics in your isntituion in 2013?

21.3 Were the staff members informed on the measure taken with regard to those who violated the Code of Conduct?

21.4 Is there in your institution a subdivision or person in charge of supervising the Code of Conduct, conflict of interest, declaration of income and assets?

21.6 In 2013, did you attend any anti-corruption training/ seminar (ethics in public service, conflicts of interest, declaration of income and assets)?

21.7 Are you aware of the staff evaluation/promotion procedure?

21.8 Do you consider the staff evaluation procedure transparent and objective?

21.9 Are there cases in your institution when staff members are hired based on family and friendship relations?

21.10 Are there cases when staff members are promoted without deserving it/not based on merits?

21.11 Are there cases in the institution when staff members abuse their position for personal gain?

21.16 Are there cases when pressure is made on the staff members to take a decision/solve a problem in someoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interests?

22. Do you consider incorrect any policies/practices of your institutions? 14% of respondents noted that certain policies promoted by the institution are incorrect (with about 3 percentage points less than in 2012), these being blamed usually for insufficient salaries, poor endowment and personnel policy issues (hiring, promotion). However, some respondents mentioned in this context the low authorities' insistence in amending the legislation to combat corruption, insufficient public education activities about the dangers of corruption (NAC), fiscal policy based, in particular, on the taxpayers control, pressure and fines (MSTI), nontransparency of the public procurements, use of the National Ecological Fund (ME); promotion of persons without merit and before the established period of time (SV Ap Central).

Respondents who consider incorrect certain policies in institution, %

100 80

15 3

8 0

Media

SV BVCh

SVAp Central

CNA

ARFC

24 16

MTS

IFPS

MTIC

MMPSF

MED

MTID

MAIA

MDRC

MAEIE

MAI

MEC

24. What would you suggest to improve the working climate in your institution? Along with traditional suggestions to increase wages and create better working conditions, the respondents proposed: increasing the transparency of public authorities activity; improve internal and external communication; effective interaction between management and subordinates; de-bureaucratization of work; establishing clear rules to promote the staff and promoting the merit-based practice; organizing seminars and trainings for employees. 25. Do you think there is corruption in your institution? 29% of respondents mentioned that there is corruption within the institution they are working for, their share being reduced with 10 pp compared to 2012.

26. If yes, during the last 12 months, corruption in your institutionâ&#x20AC;Ś Most of the respondents believe that over the last 12 months, corruption in the institution in which they work has declined, the share of people sharing this opinion increased by about 5 percentage points as compared to 2012.

27. If you were aware of a case of corruption in your institution, would you report it? Approximately two thirds of the respondents are willing to denounce corruption, their share decreased by about 6 pp compared to 2012. Half of those who would not report cases of corruption say that they would not do so because it would only create problems to them.

28. If no, why?

29. What should be, in your opinion, the monthly wage of the staff members of your institution to avoid the temptation of accepting unofficial payments? The average calculated for the respective categories of civil servants are as follows: ordinary civil servant - 480 Euro, Head of Department - 660 Euro and Minister/Director â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1,000 Euro. The average values for the first two categories of civil servants remained the same as in 2012, and for the Minister/Director increased by about 10%.

30. Which branch of the state power is the most corrupt, in your opinion?

31. Do you consider the institution you work for is politicized?

33. Do you think that if the Minister/Director and Vice-Minister/Vice-Director of your institution would be from different political parties, the politisation problem would be solved?

34. Is there a subdivision in your institution carrying out the internal audit?

36-38. Who in your institution is responsible for: collecting statements of income and assets, collecting declarations of personal interest, petition system operation?

39. Do you know the telephone number of the hot-line of the institution you are working for?

Findings Although there is much progress in terms of familiarity/awareness of CPA employees with the legal framework on conflicts of interest, practice of filing declarations of personal interests, personnel management, perception by the respondents of the existence of corruption within the CPAs, efforts undertaken by the authorities in this context are insufficient, especially in terms of preventing the conflicts of interest, information about how to report these cases, authoritiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; internal oversight of observing restrictions and incompatibilities by employees. 22

Awareness about the legal framework. In general, there is a positive trend in familiarizing the civil servants with the legal framework on handling conflicts of interest. Thus, 92 % of respondents indicated the correct version of the notion of “conflict of interest” , their share increased slightly compared to 2012. A vast majority of respondents (85%) believe it is correct that the civil servants are not entitled to make decisions in situations of CI. Compared to 2012, the share of respondents who consider unacceptable any violation of the restrictions and prohibitions established by law has increased significantly, except for only the post-employment restrictions. The share of respondents who indicated the correct liability for failure to file declarations of personal interests, failure to report conflicts of interest and false statements is quite low, but it increased compared to 20127, including as a result of the publicizing the sanctions applied by the National Integrity Commission in 2013. At the same time, as in previous years, a negative interpretation of the term of “personal interest” is maintained, most respondents citing as examples of personal interests the violations of restrictions and incompatibilities, CI situations, as well as eventual cases of corruption. The percentage of respondents that confuse CI with corruption is high (about 60%). The practice of filing declarations of personal interests. There are many positive points in this regard. The vast majority of respondents (84 %) noted that they have filed declarations of personal interests in 2013, their share increased significantly (by 25 pp) compared to 2012. Nearly 80 % of respondents claim to have filed the declaration with the person in charge of their collection (just as the law requires) – with 21 pp more than in 2012. Nevertheless, about 20 % say they have filed declaration of personal interest with other people than those provided for in the law (head of the institution or head of department/division) or do not remember who they filed the declaration with. The vast majority of respondents who declared their personal interests noted that they received a certificate attesting the submission of the declaration (78%) and signed in the register of declarations (77 %) , their share increased significantly compared to 2012 (with 24 and 13 percentage points pp respectively). However, some respondents confused the declarations of personal interest with the declaration of income and assets: being summoned to indicate the difficulties in filling in the declarations of personal interest, most of those who indicated them made reference to problems related to filling in the income and assets declaration (deficiencies in collecting information, unclear indication of property/assets value, etc.). Handling conflicts of interest. The public authorities do not give enough attention to this issue: nearly 37 % of respondents noted that their job description does not provide for any requirements about the obligation to declare personal interests and conflicts of interest. The vast majority of respondents (88 %) noted that they did not report any conflicts of interest in 2013, similar to 2012. Only 7 % say they have reported conflicts of interest, invoking usually among the reporting problems “lack of clarity in the declaration text”, “difficulties related to the questions content”, “problems in filling in the form”. Since the reporting of conflicts of interest is done in a free-form and is not based on a particular form/template, we might conclude that the respondents confuse reporting on conflicts of interest with the declaration of interests. In addition to that, most of the respondents ( 89 %) say they do not know about any conflicts of interest, which have occurred in the institution they work for in 2013. Those who referred to conflicts of interest in 2013, cited cases of conflicts of interest that were resolved within the institutions, as well as eventual cases of abuse in office, violation of restrictions in the hierarchy of public office, making decisions in situations of conflict of interest, which in all likelihood were not reported and resolved. Among the subdivisions with increased risk of occurrence of conflicts of interest, the authorities management, financial and economic departments, legal departments are frequently indicated. Although the legislation establishes post-employment restrictions (restrictions of terminating the activity)8, about 74% of respondents claim that there are no such restrictions for the staff of the institution (similar to the situation in 2012). From the examples put forward by respondents (“seniority”, “non-disclosure of confidential information”, “existence of a criminal record”, “we have no right to hold a position in another institution”, “cummulation of the main activity with other remunerated activity, except for the teaching activity”, etc.) we may conclude that the employees typically are not familiar with this kind of restrictions.

In 2012, about 26% of respondents indicated correctly the sanctions for failure to file the declaration of personal interest and declaration of income and assets, and respectively 17% - for failure to declare the conflicts of interest. 8 Article 20 of Law no. 16/2008.

Opinions regarding the human resources management, any eventual shortcomings in the implementation of internal policies. In general, the situation with regard to hiring, promoting and rewarding the staff of CPAs, employees non-discrimination for various reasons (national, political, gender) continues to improve. However, there are several problems in this regard:    

28% of respondents consider that the procedure of staff evaluation is not objective and transparent, 17% of interviewees noted that there is no information about this procedure; 33% of respondents say that there are cases in the institution when people are hired based on family and friendship relations; 31% of respondents note the existence of cases of staff promotion and rewarding not based on merits; 22% of respondents consider that the institutions have cases when the employees use their official position for personal purposes.

About 14 % of respondents noted that some policies promoted by the institution are incorrect (with 3 percentage points less than in 2012), usually being blamed for low wages, unsatisfactory endowment and personnel policy issues (hiring, promotion). In this context, some of the respondents mentioned the low authorities' insistence on amending the legislation to combat corruption, insufficient public education activities about the dangers of corruption (NAC), fiscal policy based, in particular, on the taxpayers control, pressure and fines (MSTI), non-transparency of the public procurements, use of the National Ecological Fund (ME); promotion of persons without merit and before the established period of time, tolerance for the family relations between the customs officers and customs brokers (CS Ap Central). The existence of corruption within the CPAs, availability to denounce corruption cases. 29 % of respondents claim that there is corruption in the institution where they work, their share being reduced by 10 pp compared to 2012. The largest part of those who believe that there is corruption in the institution noted that in the last 12 months, this phenomenon has decreased (42 %), the share of people who support this idea increased by about 5 percentage points as compared to 2012. About two thirds of respondents are willing to denounce corruption cases, still their share has decreased by about 6 pp compared to 2012 Recommendations -

Continuous familiarization of the CPAs staff with regard to the provisions of the legal framework on handling conflicts of interest, emphasizing the aspects of personal interest, incompatibilities and restrictions, including post-employment and reporting conflicts of interest;

Drawing attention of the CPAs employees about the mandatory reporting of conflicts of interest, developing the guidelines for reporting, documenting and resolving conflicts of interest and their implementation;

Strengthening the CPAs capacities of internal monitoring of o with thef the observance of restrictions and incompatibilities, reporting conflicts of interest, by involving the security structures in the process;

Drawing the attention of the CPAs on situations of conflict of interest raised by the respondents, taking into consideration the views of respondents on incorrect policies promoted within the CPAs and proposals for improving the work environment;

Making the personnel hiring, evaluation, promotion and rewarding procedures transparent by informing the employees about the content and compliance with these procedures.