Author: Irakli Kotetishvili

Fair, transparent and politically neutral procedures for appointment and dismissal in the civil service should be one of the main priorities for any government, as it determines the quality of the service provided to the ultimate objective – the citizen. Therefore, politically neutral appointment and dismissal procedures in the public sector are crucial.

After the elections held on October 1, 2012 it is interesting to analyse the data that has come from the policy on appointment and the dismissal procedures of the new government

The Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) in Georgia requested public information from sixteen ministries, four offices of the state ministries and the Government Chancellery of Georgia through the form of a questionnaire. It contained five identical questions for all the state agencies requesting the following information:

1. A list of positions for which competitions had been announced from October 20, 2012 until receipt of the questionnaire;

2. A list of positions where officials were appointed without competition from October 20, 2012 until receipt of the questionnaire;

3. A list of positions where acting officials were appointed from October 20, 2012 until receipt of the questionnaire;

4. The number of employees dismissed under the personal statement from October 20, 2012 until receipt of the questionnaire;

5. The number of employees dismissed on the basis of the government’s decision from October 20, 2012 until receipt of the questionnaire.

All of the public institutions reported relatively comprehensive information with regards to the request issued by the IDFI, except the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance.

According to the results, some common features of human resources management practice have been revealed within state agencies.

The practice of recruitment via competition had been practically reduced to zero and tendency of appointment of acting officials had significantly increased that excludes necessity to conduct competition.

In general, competition is the best way for employing professionals, so that, in turn they provide a high quality service. Competition also supports the public belief in fair appointment within public sector. The practise of appointing friends and relatives in the public sector must be eliminated as it works against these core principles of competition.

According to the Law of Georgia on Civil Service (Article 29), a person should be appointed based on the results of competition, except cases considered in article 30. According to the Article 30, positions that may be appointed without competition are:

a) Civil servants, appointed or elected by the President of Georgia, the Parliament of  Georgia, the Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia or the Prime Minister of Georgia;

b) Civil servants elected by the supreme representative bodies of the Autonomous Republics of Abkhazia and Adjara;

c) Deputy Ministers, assistants and advisers to the Minister;

d) Temporary substitutes;

e) Temporarily acting civil servants;

f) Acting officials for the position that should be filled only through competition;

According to the same article, high-ranking officials (heads of department, etc.) may be appointed as acting official for no more than one year and for other positions – not more than three years. This amendment should enter into force from January 1, 2013, however, according the amendment adopted by the Parliament of Georgia in December 2012, the deadline was postponed until July 1, 2013 (in this article we do not discuss the advisability and fairness of the amendment).

Accordingly, it can be said, that if an official is not appointed through competition (except in cases described in article 30) and is not an acting official, the appointment of him/her without any competition is in violation of the law.

The information below outlines: I – How many acting officials were appointed; II – How many competitions were announced; III – How many officials were appointed without competition; IV – How many officials were dismissed under the personal statement.

I.      The received information shows a clear trend in favour of utilising acting officials within institutions. This is the case, when administrations do not attempt to seek professionals through the process of competition. The biggest number of acting officials was found in the Ministry of Finance (235), Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs (34) and Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure (19).

1. As for announced competitions, only two state agencies, the Ministry of Justice (7) and Ministry of Economy (2), announced contests.

1. As for appointing without competition, the biggest number was found in the Ministry of Internal Affairs (71) and the Government Chancellery (44). It is noteworthy, that the legislation allows for the appointing officials by the Prime Minister without competition. The questionnaire issued by the IDFI was only concerned with the officials appointed without competition, who were not appointed by the Prime Minister.

1. The following table highlights one of the problematic issues concerning the dismissal of employees under the personal statement and also on the basis of administration/administrative decision.

It should be noted, that the procedures for competition within the civil service have been simplified and is completely web-based for more than one year. Every citizen has the opportunity to find vacancies published within the public service and apply online on the following website: www.hr.gov.ge.

As for dismissal on the basis of decision of the administration, the agency with the greatest number was the Government Chancellery (97), and for the whole number of dismissed employees the Ministry of Internal Affairs was the leader (493).

As it is clear from the table, part the above-mentioned information refers to the whole system of ministries (including LEPL and subordinate agencies), and the second part refers only to the central offices of the ministries. Accordingly, it is impossible to make sufficient conclusions about the dismissed employees from the ministries.

NOTE: The above-mentioned results refer to the period from October 20, 2012 to December 17, 2012 and were based on the data received by the IDFI from public institutions.