International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy

Monitoring the Process of Certification and Competition in Public Service

Second Interim Report

For the period from October 2014 to February 2015

February 12, 2015 Tbilisi

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of ISFED and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, Amereican people or the United States Government.

By the June 26, 2014 amendments to the Law of Georgia on Public Service1, the deadline for implementing the first stage of certification and competition in public service at the local self-government level is July 1, 2015. The purpose of certification is to evaluate professional skills of public servants at the local (municipal) level, while competitions are the mechanism for filling vacant positions in public service. Corresponding commissions for competition and certification are in charge of the process of public service competition and certification. The process is technically supported by the National Center of Examinations and Assessments of Georgia and the Training Center of Justice (TCJ).

Methodology

Since October 2014, the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy has been monitoring the process of competitions and certification during the stage of tests and interviews throughout Georgia. 73 observers of ISFED are monitoring the process using uniform methodology and questionnaires.

ISFED has already monitored the process of testing in all self-government territories and the process of interviews in 49 municipalities and self-governing cities of Georgia. The report highlights key trends and irregularities detected by the monitoring.

As to the assessment of competition results, ISFED has requested information from all self-governing agencies where the process of appointment of recruits has been completed. Since we did not receive the requested information from all municipalities, ISFEDs assessment of competition results is incomplete and does not reflect the situation across the country.

Notably, due to certain restrictions ISFED was unable to monitor the process of interviews at all or in full in 14 self-governing territories. Further, ISFED was not allowed to monitor the decision-making process in any of the self-governing territories. Therefore, our assessments are based on monitoring of interviews and written information about results of competition received from individual self-governing agencies.

Administration of Tests

Trends and technical deficiencies in the process of testing candidates

One of the stages of certification and competition for employment in public service is testing of candidates. ISFED monitored administration of tests in all self-governing territories. The process was administered by the National Assessment and Examination Center and the TCJ.

1 See Article 1344 of the Law on Public Service of Georgia: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/28312

Observers have reported that on the most part the process ran smoothly, except for slight technical deficiencies, like for instance power outage, low speed Internet, inadequate conditions in testing rooms; in some instances candidates were not informed about testing on time and testing was started late. However, as these deficiencies were limited to a small scale and were often remedied in time, they did not influence the overall process of testing.

Majority of candidates noted that tests were difficult or somewhat difficult, and minimum threshold score in some self-governments was high.

Claims by candidates were mostly filed over contents of tests or results. Majority of claims were rejected for lack of grounds. Notably, participants had not received detailed information about drawing up and filing a complaint, which created certain obstacles for them later in the complaints process. The shortcoming was later corrected based on ISFEDs recommendation.

In individual cases, there was a difference in actual scores received by candidates and those published on the official website but it was impossible to prove anything as upon completion of a test, candidate did not receive any document for checking answers and using it as proof.

Administration of Interviews

As noted above, in addition to tests ISFED is also monitoring the process of interviews throughout Georgia. ISFED has already monitored interviews in the following 49 municipalities: 6 municipalities in Adjara, 32 municipalities of Shida Karli, 6 municipalities in Kakheti3, 4 in Samtskhe-Javaskheti4, 11 in Imereti5, 6 in Samegrelo Zemo-Svaneti6, 5 in Racha-Lechkhumi Kvemo Svaneti7, 4 in Kvemo-Kartli8, 3 in Mtskheta-Mtianeti9 and the city of Tbilisi.

Observers have reported that on the most part interviews ran smoothly, equal time was allocated to all candidates and questions were similar in terms of their content and difficulty. Commission members were mostly positive towards candidates. However, in 8 self-governing territories10 commission members asked irrelevant questions, pressured and discriminated against some candidates based on their political affiliation and gender.

2 Kaspi, Khashuri, Gori 3 Gurjaani, Sighnaghi, Dedoplistskaro, Lagodekhi, Kvareli, Akhmeta 4 Adigeni, Akhalkalaki, Borjomi, Ninotsminda 5 City of Kutaisi, Kharagauli, Sachkhere, Chiatura, Zestaponi, Baghdati, Vani, Samtredia, Khoni, Tkibuli, Tskaltubo 6 Mestia, Abasha, Senaki, Martvili, Zugdidi 7 Oni, Ambrolauri, City of Ambrolauri, Tsageri, Lentekhi 8 Gardabani, Dmanisi, Tetritskaro, Tsalka 9 Tianeti, Mtskheta, Dusheti 10 Municipalities of Khulo, Tsageri, Gardabani, Kaspi, Keda, Gori, Akhmeta, Tbilisi

Obstacles in the process of monitoring

ISFED faced certain restrictions to monitoring interviews in 14 out of 49 municipalities. 5 11 local self-government agencies allowed only a few non-governmental organizations to monitor the process of interviews but certain restrictions applied. 912 self-government authorities refused to allow organizations monitor their current or scheduled interviews.

In Tbilisi City Hall representatives of three NGOs 13 were allowed to monitor activities of one commission only during certification interviews, while during competition interviews in Tbilisi City Hall currently monitored by ISFED, no such restrictions apply.

Commissions for certification and competition in Kutaisi City Hall, Gori City Hall, Telavi City Hall and Lanckhuti Municipality, ISFED was allowed limited monitoring; in particular, we were able to attend an interview only upon consent of a candidate concerned.

ISFED was denied to attend interviews in Lanchkhuti Gamgeoba and Sakrebulo based on formal letters of candidates addressed to the commission about their refusal to allow a third person to attend their interviews. However, in a formal letter addressed to ISFED, the commission notes that it will take into account interests of candidates who agree to have a third person present during their interviews. Nevertheless, ISFED was only able to monitor the interviews for the period of one day only, with the help of Gamgebeli, head of the commission, after we contacted him again on the second day of the interview process.

By the decision of commissions for certification and competition in Ozurgeti City Hall, Rustavi City Hall, Akhaltsikhe, Ozurgeti, Aspindza, Kareli Telavi, Terjola and Sagarjo municipalities, ISFED was not allowed to attend any of the interviews on the grounds that the process is most difficult for candidates and presence of a third party may subject them to a psychological pressure and have a negative impact on the outcome. It was also stated that commission already had a civil society representative among its members.

According to Rustavi City Hall, for the certification interviews they had already selected other monitoring organization14 that would monitor the process.

Notably in Terjola Municipality Gamgeoba, in addition to the fact that an observer was not allowed to observe the interviews, she was also subjected to mistreatment and verbal threats by unauthorized persons inside the building, who were members of the commission for certification and competition. In particular, Head of Gamgeobas Department of Economy and Property at Besarion Sopromadze, Head of the Administrative Department Eliso Zhorzholiani and Members of Sakrebulo Gia Liluashvili and Aleksandre Zalkaniani made several incorrect remarks at the observer,

11 Tbilisi City Hall, Kutaisi City Hall, Gori City Hall, Telavi City Hall, Lanchkhuti Municipality 12 Ozurgeti City Hall, Rustavi City Hall, municipalities of Akhaltsikhe, Ozurgeti, Azpindza, Kareli, Telavi, Terjola, Sagarejo 13 ISFED, Transparency International Georgia, Georgian Young Lawyers Association 14 Georgian Young Lawyers Association

demanded that she leave the premises and threatened to call the police if she failed to do so.

The observer was inside the municipality building and not the interview room, requesting official statement from the commission as to the reason why she was not allowed to attend the interview. She said she would live the premises as soon as they clarified the reason.

Acting Chairperson of Terjola Sakrebulo was also prohibited from attending the job interviews. He had applied to the commission a day before for its permission to attend. The chairperson stated Terjola Commission for Certification and Competition operates independently from the commission chairman and is governed by unauthorized individuals.

We believe that similar to other municipalities where our right to monitor was curtailed, the decision of Terjola Municipality Commission for Certification and Competition is biased and unfounded, especially considering that ISFED had already received a consent to monitor all stages of certification and competition in Terjola Municipality. We also believe that unauthorized individuals have no right to interfere with the decision-making process related to certification and competition and to exert pressure on observers.

We believe that the reasons why commissions curtailed rights of monitoring organizations are completely unsubstantiated and groundless. Pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Code, commission for certification and competition is a collegial administrative agency and therefore, its meetings as well as any legal acts related to competition and certification, meeting minutes and competition results must be accessible to all interested parties.15

ISFED believes that groundless refusal to perform complete observation raises serious suspicions about transparency and fairness of the process, allowing us to assumed that commissions may fail to deliver objective decisions.

Discrimination of candidates on political grounds during interviews

ISFEDs observers have reported that during interviews commissions in 5 municipalities made political remarks, asked inappropriate questions and demonstrated bias.

Bias in favor of several candidates was detected in Tsageri Municipality. In particular, members of the commission D.Gh., B.N. and I.K. did not ask questions of similar difficulty to candidates. Further, some candidates were asked about their political activities in the past, in particular whether they approved of the policy of the previous government and whether they resisted their activities in any form.

15 Also see practice guidelines for administering competition and certification in public agencies, pp.10-11, available at: http://csb.gov.ge/uploads/giz2014-ge-konkursi-atestacia-sajaro-samsaxurshi.pdf

In Gardabani Municipality we found cases of improper administration of interviews and bias. In particular, candidate G.J. had applied for two vacant positions. He was not invited to interview for the position of Gamgebeli, while for the position of head of the department of coordination of representatives of administrative service he was basically not interviewed. The candidate had received a high score in test (51 points). During the interview the commission asked him a single question. He was asked to specify his test score. The commission found temporary appointee to be the winner of the competition for the position of head of the department of coordination of representatives of administrative service. His test score were significant lower than G.J.s. According to the candidate, he applied to the commission for competition and certification, requesting that the commission clarify criteria used to evaluate his performance during the interview but the commission refused to respond.

ISFEDs coordinator reported that in Gardabani municipality, commission for competition and certification demonstrated bias in favor of current employees of Gamgeoba. In particular, four candidates who had been appointed temporarily to positions for which they had applied to were not interviewed at all. Gamgebeli provided recommendation for these candidates. As a result, the commission evaluated them without asking any questions and found them as winners of the competition.

Political remarks were made during an interview in Khulo Municipality where one of the commission members who is now serving as the head of Khulo Resource Center told a candidate about a building that it had been sold by you and your government. The candidate used to be a majoritarian member of Sakrebulo from the United National Movement. The commission chairman disapproved of the comment and said that similar political remarks are not allowed during interview.

During an interview in Akhmeta Municipality, they asked a political question to a candidate. In particular, member of Akhmeta self-governing territory A.M. asked a candidate about his past political affiliation. The candidate used to be a member of Sakrebulo from the United National Movement.

Appointment of candidates based on their political affiliation in Kaspi Municipality

ISFEDs observer reported that four candidates were hired as specialists of Sakrebulo Office who in ISFEDs assessment failed their interviews, as they could not answer a single question. According to the observer, candidates were selected according to their political affiliation. All four winning candidates represent the political party Georgian Dream.

Political pressure on members of Free Democrats in Gori Municipality

The Free Democrats report that the confrontation after quitting the ruling coalition was reflected in the process of competition and certification in public service. According to Tamaz Shioshvili, chairman of Free Democrats office in Gori and member of the parliament, members of Sakrebulo from Free Democrats and

supporters of the party employed in local self-government agencies were pressured in Gori municipality by the head of the State Security Service regional office and the Governor. They were suggested to abandon the party in order to maintain their jobs in the self-government agency. Like for instance, two members of the party who chose to leave the party and join the coalition Georgian Dream were able to maintain their managerial positions in Gori City Hall.

According to member of the party I.G., who worked as head of the social services division at the department of health and social services in Gori City Hall reported that on November 19, 2014, after he took the test he was summoned by Governor Z.R. Governor offered him to join their team; otherwise, he said that he wouldnt be hired. After I.G. rejected the offer someone else was appointed to the position.

According to the Free Democrats, trustees of territorial agencies, who are also members of the Free Democrats did not participate in competitions, saying that based on preliminary reports and sentiments they already knew that no one was going let them win the competition due to their party affiliation.

Political pressure on members of the Republican Party in Akhmeta Municipality

On February 4, 2015, Chairwoman of the Republican Party Khatuna Samnidze held a press-conference over alleged pressure of members of the Republican Party on political grounds in municipalities of Tbilisi, Kutaisi and Akhmeta. In particular, the chairwoman stated that attempts have been made to pressure Republican Party members into abandoning their party and joining the coalition Georgian Dream in exchange for employment.

Since ISFEDs access to interviews during certification process in Kutaisi and Tbilisi was restricted, it was unable to detect any attempts of discrimination of Republican Party members on political grounds.

As to the competition in Akhmeta Municipality, ISFEDs observer attended interviews with five members of the Republican Party. We believe that member of the Republican Party N.K. competing for the position of lead specialist at the department of information, public relations and human resources management in Gamgeoba performed better than the winning candidate during interview. Further, unlike N.K. the winning candidate does not have any professional experience. ISFED also found that two representatives of the Republican Party D.S. and N.B. competing for the position of lead specialist at the department of public and media relations in Sakrebulos office performed better than the winning candidates during interview.

We found that winning candidates performed better than members of the Republican Party L.B. and A.K. during their interviews for the following two positions: representative of Khalantsa Village in the self-governing agency and lead specialist in gender issues at the administrative department.

Since ISFED was refused to access the process of decision-making by the commission, we are unaware of the criteria used by the commission to identify winning candidates.

Gender discrimination of candidates in Keda Municipality

Gender discrimination was detected in Keda self-governing territory. Whenever a candidate interviewed by the commission for the office of community trustee or the position of lead specialist in supervisory matters was a female, at least one member of the commission emphasized gender of the candidate, saying that a woman would have hard time handling the responsibilities. In general, it was clear that the commission favored men over women for certain positions.

Secret video recording by a candidate and pressure exerted on him by the commission during interview in Tbilisi Sakrebulo

ISFED found an incident that occurred on January 29, 2015, during a competition announced for vacancies in Tbilisi Sakrebulo. One of the candidates, K.B. was secretly recording his interview, which was noticed by a commission member. Following the interview a few members of the commission followed him and rudely demanded that he give them the recording. The candidate was verbally abused by members of the commission; they called the police.

ISFEDs observer did not witness the act of pressure but few minutes after the incident she was able to interview the candidate to find out whether he was subjected to a pressure or not. He stated that he was not pressured. However, the video recording released later showed that a commission member insulted him verbally and threatened with physical violence. The video recording also shows another member of the commission saying during a telephone conversation that the commission was also recording the interview process. ISFEDs observer reported that candidates were unaware that the interview process was recorded.

Notably, in Georgia law prohibits secret recording without consent of an individual concerned. Consent is not necessary if the recording is made in an attempt to protect vital and legal interests of an individual. Therefore, we believe that author of the recording must provide any proof about interests and purpose served by secretly recording the interview.

Whether the candidate violated the law or not, threats, pressure and verbal abuse of the candidate by members of the commission is completely unacceptable. We believe that commission members must be held liable for this.

Evaluation of the Process of Selection of candidates by ISFED

ISFED is actively working to obtain information from the commissions and self-governing bodies about final results of the competition, i.e. winning candidates appointed to vacant positions, for a comparative analysis to determine whether

commissions are objective or not in the process of assessment of interviews and selection of candidates. However, since did not receive the requested information from all municipalities, ISFEDs assessment of competition results is incomplete and does not reflect the situation across the country. Based on the information obtained and analyzed by us at this time, we hereby present assessment of the process of selection of candidates in Adjara-Guria and in particular, in Batumi City Hall and Sakrebulo, Keda, Khulo, Shuakhevi, Khelvachauri and Chokhatauri Municipalities. As to Kobuleti Municipality, ISFED evaluated candidates who alleged that commissions decisions were biased.

Notably, during interviews ISFED was evaluating level of candidates based on a pre-designed uniform methodology; however, we could not attend tabulation of scores and announcement of results due to restrictions placed on the monitoring. Therefore, ISFEDs assessment is based on the following: whether the candidate gave a good impression or not, how many questions he/she answered, whether the candidates answers were correct and whether s/he had knowledge of important issues related to public service.

Based on the information available to us at present, it is safe to conclude that in the six self-governing agencies where ISFED analyzed the process of recruitment, on the most part evaluation of interviews and determination of winning candidates by the commissions was fair and objective. However, we believe that the commission could have made a better choice for 26 vacant positions. We found that in Kobuleti municipality, the commission objectively determined winning candidates in three out of five cases; remaining two decisions of the commission were not fair.

ISFEDs evaluation of the process of selection of candidates in Batumi City Hall

According to the results of a competition for public service employment in Batumi, majority of 47 candidates nominated to Batumi Municipality Mayor for their appointment had already been appointed temporarily to the very same positions or to other positions, while only 28 candidates were brand new recruits. In Batumi City Hall ISFED was able to monitor complete process of interviews and found that in its evaluation of candidates and determination of winners the commission was objective on the most part; however, we believe that the commission could have made a better choice for 12 positions.

Competition for 23 out of 98 positions was canceled. Notably, these positions included 16 positions for which acting employees could not pass tests second stage of the competition. Based on the interviews, out of these positions we believe that the commission had a choice of suitable candidates in two cases only for the position of deputy head of the Mayors administration and the position of first category lead specialist of the internal audit service. One of the candidates for the latter position, Z.U. made the best impression during his interview but was given 1,79 points only by the commission. It was stated that he failed the interview. Out of the remaining 21 positions, in four cases none of the candidates were able to pass the first stage, while in 17 cases we did not find any of the candidates appropriate. We welcome the fact that the commission canceled competition for these positions.

In several cases the commission chose some of the weakest candidates as winners of the competition for employment in Batumi City Hall. In particular,

A brand new recruit D.K. was announced as a winner for the position of the deputy head of supervisory service. He had gained a very high score of 49 during testing but his interview results were not nearly as good as his test score. Even though the commission had no other choice, because this is a very important position it should have used higher evaluation criteria during interview and should have canceled the competition for this particular position.

Two current employees of Batumi City Hall appointed temporarily B.D. and R.Dz. were found as winners for the position of second category lead specialist of the internal audit service. We found them to be suitable candidates. Even though they received a very good score in their tests (B.D, received 48 points, R.Dz. received 44 points) and based on interview results, the commission had no better choice. However, be believe that the commission was inconsistent in its assessment of interview results. It found average candidates as winners for the position of second category lead specialist but canceled a competition for the first category lead specialist, even though it had much better choice of candidates for this position.

The candidate S.G. found as a winner for the position of lead specialist of the internal audit service was a temporary appointee for the very same position. We gave him a very low score in our assessment during the interview and his test score was 41. The commission could have chosen a better candidate (Kh.S.), one who had gotten 51 points in test and made a better impression during the interview.

Brand new recruits were found as winners for the position of the third category lead specialist for the department of city infrastructure in the municipal improvement service and two positions of the second category lead specialist of the supervisory service, division of supervision of the states construction activities. We believe that these candidates performed poorly during interview. Even though they received very high scores in tests, we believe that they failed their interviews. Because the commission had no other choice, it should have canceled the competition for these positions.

Candidates who performed poorly during interviews were found as winners for the positions of second and third category lead specialists in the department of urban planning and urban development, service of architecture and urban planning (winner of the competition for the second category lead specialist was N.B., temporary appointee for the very same position, while winner of the third category lead specialist was a brand new recruit S.B.). Both candidates received 41 points in their tests. We believe that they received inadequately high scores in their interviews, as a result of which they were found as winners. As no other candidates participated in this competition, the commission did not have any other choice. Therefore, it should have canceled the competition.

Two new recruits were found as winners for the position of Mayors representative in Bagrationi Administrative Unit and assistant representative of Mayor in Boni-Gorodoki Administrative Unit. They performed poorly during interviews. There was no other candidate for the position of Mayors representative in Bagrationi

administrative unit and therefore, the commission had no other choice. It should have cancelled the competition.

Total of three complaints were filed, disputing final results of the competition. Complainants had applied for several vacant positions and therefore, they had been interviewed several times. However, they had filed their complaints disputing results of competition for a concrete position, claiming that they deserved a better score for their interviews. None of the three complaints were granted. ISFED attended interviews of all three candidates and we believe that the commission was impartial in selection of winning candidates for all three positions.

ISFEDs evaluation of the process of selection of candidates in Batumi Sakrebulo

Competition was canceled for 2 out of 13 positions in Batumi Sakrebulo, as the commission did not have any suitable candidates to choose from. Winning candidates included four temporary appointees and seven brand new recruits. ISFED monitored complete process of interviews for vacant positions in Batumi Sakrebulo. Notably, commission members rarely asked questions related to professional matters during interviews. Therefore, it was difficult for us to evaluate qualifications of candidates in a comprehensive manner; however, we believe that based on interviews the commission could have made better choice for two positions.

Several candidates for the positions of Assistant to Sakrebulo Chairperson and head of the procurement and material-technical department than winning candidates; however, as other candidates had higher score in tests, with total number of scores they were announced as winners.

ISFEDs evaluation of the process of selection of candidates in Khulo Municipality

Competition was announced for 44 vacant positions in Gamgeoba and 2 vacant positions in Sakrebulo in Khulo Municipality. Following the competition both vacant positions in Sakrebulo were filled, while in Gamgeoba the number of filled positions was 33. The competition was canceled for 11 positions. ISFED attended 120 out of 157 interviews in Khulo Municipality. ISFED found that the commission made the right decision by canceling competition for some of the vacant positions. Further, based on the interviews monitored, ISFED concluded that the commission objectively selected candidates; however, ISFED disagrees with four decisions of the commission.

We believe that the commissions decision to cancel competition in Didchara Community was not objective. Candidate A.Kh. gained 41 points in test and performed well during interview, and therefore she could have been chosen as the winner of the competition. Candidates who performed poorly in interviews for vacant positions of Assistant of Gamgebeli in legal affairs and Gamgebelis representative in Riketi Community were announced as winners. The commission did not have any

suitable candidates to choose from since other candidates did not appear for interview. We believe that the commission could have announced a new competition for these positions.

Notably, one of the candidates in competition in Khulo Municipality, A.T. complained about the competition process. A report was aired on TV 25 and the candidates letter titled An Open Letter to Khulo Gamgebeli was published on the website www.batumelebi.ge about the fact. The candidate had applied for several positions in Khulo Municipality. ISFED monitored her interviews for three positions. Even though she received a high score of 53 in test, we believe that for two positions the commission had an opportunity to make a better choice and they did. Therefore, decisions of the commission for the two positions were objective. As to the third position representative of Gamgebeli A.T. and the winning candidate performed equally well; however, A.T. had higher test scores than the winning candidate. Therefore, the commission should have decided in favor of A.T.

ISFEDs evaluation of the process of selection of candidates in Shuakhevi Municipality

In Shuakhevi Municipality competition was announced for 17 positions in Gamgeoba and 3 in Sakrebulo. The competition was canceled for four positions in Gamgeoba and one in Sakrebulo. ISFED monitored 31 out of 39 interviews in Shuakhevi Municipality. We found that on the most part, commission made objective decisions; however, we found irregularities in the complaints process.

Total of 3 complaints were filed over interview process, including one about a vacancy in Sakrebulo and one about a vacancy in Gamgeoba. Both complaints were rejected. As to the third complaint filed by candidate R.B. against his interview results for the position of lead specialist in legal and human resources department. The complaint was granted by the complaints commission and the complainants score was increased from 9,26 to 9,54. As a result, he was announced to be the winner of the competition instead N.A., who had gotten 9,54 points according to the minutes of the commission meeting.

As noted by the lawyer of Gamgeoba, the commission has not yet made a decision about winners. It first published scores of candidates from interviews as well as their total scores, without specifying who the winners were. The commission made a decision about winning candidates by taking into account results of the complaints process, after the deadline for filing complaints had passed.

We believe that such approach contradicts legal norms and strips candidates off their right to appeal decisions of the commission. Pursuant to the law on Public Service, the commission must inform each candidate about decision made about him/her, including not only scores but also whether s/he won or lost in the competition for public service employment. This way, candidates will have an opportunity to appeal against their scores or against final results of the competition. Shuakhevi commission for competition and certification did not provide candidates with any such opportunity. It was the commission that made a mistake and therefore, candidates who are seeking to file a complaint must allowed to do so even past the deadline.

ISFEDs evaluation of the process of selection of candidates in Keda Municipality

Competition was announced for 27 positions in Gamgeoba and 4 positions in Sakrebulo of Keda Municipality. According to the final results of the competition, winning candidates have been announced for all of the positions. ISFED monitored all of the interviews in Keda Municipality and found that the process of selection of candidates was objective; however, ISFED disagrees with two decisions of the commission.

According to the results table published on the website, candidate M.B. won the competition for the position of lead specialist in sports and youth affairs, department of sports and youth affairs, department of education, culture, sports, tourism, youth affairs and monuments protection. On January 5, 2015, the commission contacted the candidate to inform the latter that the competition had actually been won by another candidate, M.M. It turned out that M.M. had filed a complaint alleging that by the total number of points he was the winner of the competition. According to the results table uploaded on the website of the municipality, M.B. had 13,2 points while M.M had 13 points. Notably, both candidates had received equal amount of points for their interviews (43).

M.Ms complaint was granted by the complaints commission. It issued a recommendation for the commission for certification and competition to recognize M.M. as the winning candidate. The commission for certification and competition granted the complaint and announced M.M as the winner instead of M.B., who had gained the highest number of scores according to the results published on the official website of the commission.

In an interview with ISFEDs coordinator, the commission stated that they made a mistake in counting of points in favor of M.B. After recount they found that M.M. had one point more that M.B., winner of the competition according to the results published on the website. Therefore, M.M. was announced to be the actual winner of the competition.

Five candidates were interviewed for this position, including M.B. who was initially announced as the winner. In ISFEDs view he performed best during interview.

Four candidates were interviewed for the position of lead specialist at the property management service of the department for economic development, including temporary appointee G.Ts. The commission members told him during interview that they expected more from him, as he was an old employee of the department. We think that candidate S.Ch. performed best during interview. The commission also acknowledged his performance. He was not an employee of the self-government. Even though the G.Ts. received fewer (45) points than S.Ch (50), the former (temporary appointee) was announced as the winner.

ISFEDs assessment of the process of selection of candidates in Khelvachauri Municipality

ISFED monitored 139 out of 578 interviews during a competition in Khelvachauri Municipality. ISFED found that the commission was objective and fair in its decisions about candidates.

Notably, ISFEDs reaction about the problem identified in the process of filling vacant positions by contestants in Khelvachauri Municipality Sakrebulo had a successful outcome.

Chairman of Sakrebulo Jumber Beridze was going to appoint a contestant who had received total of 10,8 scores in testing and interview instead of a candidate with 11,4 scores to the position of a lead specialist in management and organizational issues at the office of Khelvachauri Municipality Sakrebulo. The chairman explained his decision by saying that the difference between the scores was insignificant and the first competitor had 4 years of work experience.

Regional television channel TV 25 investigated the issue and prepared a report featuring ISFEDs position. It was ISFEDs position that the chairman had legal right to make final decision about the appointment; however, based on principles of a competition, preference must be given to a contester with highest scores.

Following ISFED s statement Sakrebulo Chairman changed his decision in favor of the contester with higher score.

Taking into account recommendations of civil sector in the process of local self-government appointments is a positive development. This will ensure transparency and fairness of the process.

ISFEDs assessment of the process of selection of candidates in Chokhatauri Municipality

Competition in Chokhatauri municipality was announced for 67 positions in Gamgeoba and 7 in Sakrebulo. As a result of the competition, 65 positions were filled in Gamgeoba and 6 in Sakrebulo. Competition for three positions including two in Gamgeoba was cancelled. ISFED monitored 94 out of 106 interviews ad found that the commission was objective in its decisions about winning candidates. However, based on interviews we believe that the commission could have picked better candidates for five positions.

It is our assessment that for three positions of Gamgebeli representative as well as for the positions of head of the legal affairs of administrative service and head of the service of property management and supervision, the commission did not pick candidates who performed best during interviews as winners. In ISFEDs opinion, candidates who performed moderately during their interviews were picked as winners.

ISFEDs assessment of decisions of the commission in Kobuleti Municipality about candidates who filed complaints

In Kobuleti municipality competition was announced for 101 positions in Gamgeoba and 4 in Sakrebulo. The commission announced 63 winners of the competition, while competition for remaining 42 positions was cancelled. ISFED attended 205 out of 358 interviews in Kobuleti Municipality. As to the final evaluation of the process of selection of candidates, ISFED observed candidates who filed complaints disputing decision of the commission. However, final evaluations of the competition result are incomplete and do not reflect the situation across the municipality. The information is being processed. We found that in three out of five cases the commission objectively identified winning candidates. In the remaining two cases we believe that the commissions decision was no fair.

One of the candidates, S.A. who did not win the competition expressed his allegations in social network about nepotism in the process of recruitment of candidates for some of the positions in Gamgeoba. ISFED attended two of the interviews of S.A. for two different positions. For one of these positions the commissions decision to go with a different candidate was objective, while for the other position representative of Gamgebeli in Mukhaestate Administrative Community, where four candidates were interviewed, two performed better than S.A. Even though the commission had an opportunity to choose from suitable candidates, the competition was cancelled.

One of the candidates, L.S. expressed his allegations in a media interview about lack of fairness of the commission. ISFED attended the candidates interviews for three different positions (head of the division of culture, head of the division of education and lead specialist at the department of culture, education, sports, tourism and monuments protection). Winners announced by the commission were other candidates who had performed better than L.S. Therefore, we believe that L.S. claims are groundless.

Candidate S.Z. also expressed his concerns over the results to media, stating that he was not selected due to his political affiliation (the candidate is a member of Free Democrats). ISFED attended the candidates interviews for both of the positions that he had applied for. We believe that the winning candidate for the position of the division of youth and gender equality at the department of culture, education, sports, tourism and monuments protection performed better during the interview and the commission made the right decision. As to the other position lead specialist at the culture division at the said department, S.Z. performed better than the winning candidate M.Ts. Therefore, we believe that this particular decision of the commission was not objective.

As to other concerns expressed by the candidate in social network, ISFED did not attend his other interviews and therefore, we are unable to conclude whether his allegations about nepotism hold any merit.

Irregularities in the process of appointments in Khoni Municipality

ISFED found that in frames of a competition for public service employment in Khoni Gamgeoba the commission for competition and certification acted negligently.

In particular, following tests and interviews the commission announced a winning candidate N.M. She was contacted and informed that he had won the competition and was summoned to work. During her first day at work she was informed that the order about her appointment would be issued at the end of the day. However, at the end of the day it was found out that other competitor had gained more points than she had and that the commission had mistakenly called her instead of the winning candidate. ISFEDs observer found out that another candidate, M.K. had in fact gained three points more than N.M. and was appointed to the vacant position.

Irregularities in the process of publication of competition results in Keda and Khulo municipalities

ISFED found inconsistencies in the minutes of the commission sessions and the information published on the website in Keda Municipality.

In Khulo Municipality a candidate who passed first and second stages of the competition was not allowed to interview due to the wrong information published on the website about his score and wrong text-message sent to him. As a result of the candidates persistence, he was summoned for interview on the last day of interviews.

Key Findings

Administration of tests

Observers have reported that on the most part the process ran smoothly, except for slight technical deficiencies. However, these deficiencies did not influence the overall process of testing.

Majority of candidates noted that tests were difficult or somewhat difficult, and minimum threshold score in some self-governments was high.

Claims by candidates were mostly filed over contents of tests or results. Majority of claims were rejected for lack of grounds.

In individual cases, there was a difference in actual scores received by candidates and those published on the official website but it was impossible to prove anything as upon completion of a test, candidate did not receive any document for checking answers and using it as proof.

Administration of interviews and the process of recruitment

ISFED monitored the process of interviews and certification in 49 municipalities. Observers have reported that on the most part interviews ran smoothly, equal time was allocated to all candidates and questions were similar in terms of their content

and difficulty. Commission members were mostly positive towards candidates. However, in several self-governing territories commission members asked irrelevant questions and discriminated against some candidates. However, in 8 self-governing territories (Municipalities of Khulo, Tsageri, Gardabani, KAspi, KEda, Gori, Akhmeta, Tbilisi) commission members asked irrelevant questions and discriminated against some candidates based on their political affiliation and gender. The report includes several acts of pressure against candidates on political grounds. ISFED believes evaluation of transparency ad objectivity of the process requires comprehensive investigation of the foregoing incidents and taking of further actions by relevant authorities.

ISFED found that in 6 municipalities in Adjara-Guria where comparative analysis of the process of recruitment of public servants was possible, members of the commission were objective in their evaluation of interviews and selection of winning candidates. However, we believe that in 26 cases the commission could have made a better choice. Further, ISFED evaluated fairness and objectivity of decisions of Kobuleti Municipality Commission about candidates who alleged lack of objectivity of the commission. We found that in 3 out of 5 cases the commissions decision about winning candidates was fair; in remaining two cases the decision was not fair.

ISFED faced obstacles to monitoring interviews in 14 out of 58 municipalities. 516 local self-government agencies allowed only a few non-governmental organizations to monitor the process of interviews but certain restrictions applied. 917 self-government authorities refused to allow organizations monitor their current or scheduled interviews. Notably, none of the self-governing territories allowed us to monitor the process of decision-making. Further, in addition to restricting our access to interviews, observer of ISFED was subjected to pressure by unauthorized individuals in Terjola Municipality. We believe that the reasons why commissions curtailed rights of monitoring organizations are completely unsubstantiated and groundless.

We believe that taking into account recommendations of civil sector in the process of local self-government appointments, as was the case with Khelvachauri Gamgeoba, is a positive development. This will ensure transparency and fairness of the process.

ISFED continues to monitor the process of certification and competition for employment in public service and will periodically update public about the course of the process, trends identified and violations detected.

Recommendations

1. We believe that threshold score set at 75% in some self-government bodies is unjustifiably high for recruitment of local self-government employees

16 Tbilisi City Hall, Kutaisi City Hall, Gori City Hall, Telavi City Hall, Lanchkhuti Municipality 17 Ozurgeti City Hall, Rustavi City Hall, municipalities of Akhaltsikhe, Ozurgeti, Azpindza, Kareli, Telavi, Terjola, Sagarejo

On the one hand, the minimum score should not vary; instead, uniform minimum scores should be set by a normative act for all self-governing territories.

On the other hand, threshold scores should differ depending on positions and the level of hierarchy involved. Threshold for mid and lower-level offices should be no more than 50% and no more than 60% for high-level offices.

2. After taking a test, candidate should be given a document that can be used for checking answers and results.

3. We believe that public service employees should be evaluated comprehensively, in view of their experience and specialization.

In the process of recruitment it is important to take into account candidates work experience in order to prevent dismissal of candidates with an in-depth knowledge of specifics of the work, who have been successfully fulfilling their responsibilities throughout a long period of time based solely on test results.

It is also important to take specialization of individual candidates into account

in the process of testing. Notably, some local government employees successfully handle their day-to-day responsibilities without utilizing in-depth knowledge of legal issues that make up significant part of tests. We believe that key criterion for recruiting highly qualified employees is their level of professionalism, while legal issues and verbal reasoning should account for only a small part of testing.

4. Equal conditions must be created for all candidates during interviews; commission members should treat all candidates equally, notwithstanding their political affiliation or sex. Further, commission members should not discriminate against candidates who are already employed but are looking for new employment opportunities.

5. Candidates must be selected based on their professional characteristics, as opposed to their political affiliation or nepotism. Further, when there is no choice of suitable candidates for especially important and high-level positions, competition must be announced again.

6. Local self-government bodies should give all interested candidates an opportunity to monitor the process of certification and competition in a comprehensive manner to prevent any questions about fairness of these processes.

International Society for Fair Elections and DemocracySecond Interim ReportFor the period from October 2014 to February 2015