BSP MP Tatyana Doncheva: NMSP Tries Futile Attempts to Emancipate from the Coalition

Mrs. Doncheva, the working group appointed to draft the amendments to the Conflict of Interests Law finished its job Wednesday. Why are you not tabling it for hearings yet?
Because the National Movement for Stability and Prosperity (NMSP) denies signing the amendments drafted. Despite the fact they posed the issue of this law adoption at the tripartite coalition session, and despite the Minister of European Affaires participated the working group’s job from beginning to end, and despite the draft bill is duly signed by the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF), as decisions of the tripartite coalition require. It’s also signed by independent MPs Ilko Dimitrov and Eleonora Nikolova, who were also members of the working group on the amendments. But we will wait for them 2-3 days, let them think it over.

What is NMSP’s argument for not signing the amendments, what is their drama?
I think their problem is connected to separation. Initially they decided this would distinguish them from the tripartite coalition as especially moral party, and they missed taking into consideration that they also probably hear from many people from the state administration and local authorities the law shows shortcomings. But they think, though, they could draw some political dividends this way. In private conversation it becomes clear they understand the defects of what has been created by the Parliamentary Administration Committee. The amendments were drafted quite too quickly, despite the pressure put on BSP mainly by NMSP and the opposition Democrats for Strong Bulgaria (DSB) party, stating it was all about delay for wining time so that nothing gets really changed. But we accepted the option for rapid amendments because the law carries some obvious defects causing lots of troubles.

What are the controversial moments in the law which NMSP rejects accepting?
The biggest problem of the law is its philosophy, which we, in the capacity of the group of MPs introducing the amendments, have tried not to change entirely, for this is impossible, but to soften instead. The law features the philosophy that conflict of interests is everywhere and it’s not important to stop concretely the cases of Uncle and Bro when they appear, but those should be prevented through completely changing personal relations in the state. Very often talks go about conflict on interests in principle – hypothetic, alleged, or possible. We consider this philosophy wrong. Here is an example: it’s not a problem that the brother of head of the Roads Agency Vesselin Georgiev owns a construction company. The problem is that this brother of his applies with his construction company for construction projects with EU funds. If he hadn’t applied, his company is of no matter for the state, there’s no need to regulate with or without declarations, with or without bans, Vesselin Georgiev’s brother’s business. But when we impose restrictions concerning a very wide range of people in the manner set up in these 25 points, and especially for the mass participation of all sorts of persons working with the state administration, at any position with it, for municipal councillors who by definition earn their living elsewhere, than we are doing something totally contradicting to real life.

Give us an example for such a contradiction?
Well, it’s not by chance that the first humoristic interpretations emerged. A gallant citizen from the town of Razgrad requested that his newspaper recorded a conflict of interests involving 25 persons, connected to the Municipality of Razgrad, starting from the mayor, his deputies, municipal councillors, to a kindergarten principal, a school sports school principal, and the school canteens director. They are all related persons through a very simple mechanism, which though is used in the Conflict of Interests Law. Some of the municipal councillors and the mayoralty administration are members of the managements of various non-governmental organizations - local sports clubs, community centres, school boards, etc. But sports clubs are located in municipal venues, and that means they are received upon decision of the Municipal Council. Sometimes municipal governments give some money to these clubs because it is generally thought completely normal and even useful. Yet this is a conflict of interests, because either the mayor or any of his deputies or municipal councillors are members of the respective management boards and that is why they are members - to help and to have a clear relationship between the municipality, its properties and citizens wishing to practice sports. Head of the school sports school is appointed by the mayor without competition and she appears sort of a leader, but in the same time she is a member of two sports clubs and now this is a conflict of interests.

They even have such a case there: the mayor has appointed municipal servant with a directorate his first wife’s sister. This is considered “severe” violation, although there’s actually no comment on his concrete relations to her. Yet anyway those persons should be dismissed from offices according to the law. In fact this is the entire managements of a regional centre. And this happens everywhere.

I was criticized by my colleagues from the NMSP for allowing myself to turn this law upside down because of the mayor of Triavna. Indeed, there are two mayors – of Triavna, elected with the support of the left; and of Svishtov, elected with the support of the right, DSB included, whose wives were municipal servants when they got elected. The women work there for 30 years, they are not deputy-mayors, or directors of directorates – they are clerks, accountants. But now the Conflict of Interests Law reads they must quit job because there were related persons. This is true, but it applies not only to spouses but also for all associated persons - to first cousins, brothers and sisters of one of the spouses, the other spouse who is a public figure with whom he or she is in political and economic relations. I.e., if you happen to find two persons of one party in a municipal government and one of them manages it, this is a conflict of interests. I understood there is some drama with the Ministry of Education too, as there are small settlements in which it appears there are two teachers with higher education, they are spouses, and one of them is school principal. So one of them has to leave. I admit that these real life breaches of the law deeply disturbed me. So deeply that ready to bear any media criticism, an entire fire hurricane, which spill over me, but since it is not my first time, I took it normally.

And what NMSP does not like about the amendments?
Firstly, the NMSP does not like that changes take place and that someone discusses whether what we have adopted is clever or stupid. We might praise before the entire world we would apply for a Nobel Prize in literature with the creation of ours, yet legislative activity involves some soundness. The strongest opponent of these amendments is MP Olimpy Katev. NMSP’s problem is of existentialism, and Oliampy Katev’s is personal, because in one of the amendments we have proposed a constant parliamentary committee to control this activity, as this parliamentary institution is entrusted with finding conflicts of interests regarding the President of the Republic, the vice-president, all Constitutional Court judges, all MPs, the Council of Ministers, the ombudsman, the members of the Supreme Judicial Council, all heads of supreme courts, inspectorates, the managers of the National Audit Chamber, the Bulgarian National Bank, and the National Revenue Agency. And we have set out what should be the status of the body to control these activities and launch procedures, check accounts, investigate relations, business, and property. And if this body does not have high enough status, how would it do all this? And so far Olimpy Katev is the chair of a subcommittee and he is afraid that in the two months remaining someone might replace him and seize his powers, and he does not take into consideration that if the law gets adopted by end-March everything may be declared by end-April.

What steps will you take for the quicker tabling of the bill?
We are waiting the NMSP for two days now, given Minister of European Affairs Gergana Grancharova was taking part in the job of the committee from the very beginning, and she and Olimpy Katev attended our last session. These are amendments approved by Minister Grancharova, and the NMSP actually posed the issue over this law at the tripartite coalition political council. So far they were explaining the media their aim was to put up much speed. Yet we are holding the law since Wednesday. On Wednesday they posed three questions we took into account not because we find their arguments grounded, but in the sake of peace and understanding and for NMSP to grant its support. But everyday something new emerges.

How long do you intend to wait for NMSP’s signatures?
I think on Monday or Tuesday we must table the draft-bill so that its processing could start next week. But it is inexplicable why at the start they were in such a hurry, and then they first tried not to take part in writing the amendments, and now they do not want to sign them. These are just futile attempts to emancipate form the coalition. For two or three weeks we have been bearing rapprochements, which were completely ungrounded and addressed by persons who knew we were working on the law and it shows shortcomings concerning them, but this cannot go any longer. I will, of course, comply with the attitude of the leader of our party and the coalition. But the draft-law may be tabled without NMSP’s signatures, after all.

 

 

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONFLICT OF INTERESTS LAW AS EXPLAINED BY TATYANA DONCHEVA
The very philosophy of the law we consider wrong, may not be changed. It is not realistic to generally fix an act on the philosophy of it in a short time. Our amendments are in 19 paragraphs and include the following points:
We are softening several texts imposing bans within the circle of persons to whom it applies:

 1. We have added the mayors of municipalities, because there is no logic to be excluded, but in the same time we have softened the point regarding the staff in all administrations as we suggested it applies to employees performing activities over order, regulation, management, and control. These are persons who are related to the acts of directing the relevant administration - municipal, state authorities, ministries, the judiciary. If people have no respect to the disposition, regulation and management, they are not even indirectly related to money and disposal transactions. In that case, there is no reason to worry about conflict of interest.

2. Regarding bans at public office performance. The cuurent art.8 of the law provides a person holding public office shall nave no right to conclude contracts and perform other activities of private interest. But each of these persons has two capacities – as public servant and as individual. It can not be excluded from its civil capacity, from the coffee shop to civil marriage. We have added that during the performance of their duties or powers of office these persons shall not carry out other activities in the private interest, to clarify things.

3. Rights of disposal as provided for in art. 9, which very thoroughly presents in whose interests these persons should not act – of non-profit legal entities, commercial companies and cooperatives, related persons, etc., we put them under one hat - no right to carry out all these disposal activities in a private interest.

4. Regarding advertisement activity – mayors usually appear on pictures in their municipalities’ brochures. For ministers, if sponsoring any activity or managed it, for instance: explanatory leaflets for the use of EU funds, and where there are pictures of the very ministers and certain senior managers engaged in such activities, according to the prohibition of Article 11 it turns out they have used their official position to be advertised. Therefore, we have clarified the ban is for commercial advertisement.

 5. Actions for preventing conflicts of interest. We suggest persons holding a public offices were removed from the performance of their duties not when they submit a declaration, but when private interest under a specific reason exists. I.e., when a construction company that serves a municipal councillor who is lawyer appears, he shall be obliged to inform on that, with the relevant consequences of the law – no right to participate in the vote, etc. Similarly we have softened both paragraphs of that Article 19 – which is about obligations for removing these persons from implementing a particular duty of office by the person itself or by the body above it when private interest under concrete occasion is detected, be it stated by the persons themselves, or recognised by their managers. I think this is reasonable, human, and normal.

 6. Another significant amendment is about the detection of conflict of interests. So far, regarding mayors and municipal councillors a legislative decision was adopted to appoint committees with the Municipal Councils to inspect the councils themselves, and municipal councils by majority vote to decide whether or not a conflict of interest exists and should that Mayor or municipal councillor be removed. This is a significant weakness of the law because it creates an opportunity for unprincipled destabilization of local authorities. First, there is a very high risk of political reasons for the opportunity to decide if there is or there isn’t conflict of interests. In our fragmented municipal councils where the issue of corruption is very present, we create an additional reason to begin removing before the end of the term mayors and councillors and whatever functionaries. I think this is the purpose of nether this law, nor the society. In practice, thus a direct election will be replaced through the back door. Therefore we suggested a new variant: the relative administrative court shall be the authority to determine upon report of the committee whether or not a conflict of interests exists. This is analogous to the condition of the law regarding other categories of public officials - President, Vice President, ombudsmen, Prime Minister, members of the Council of Ministers, Chairs of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, the Chief Prosecutor, managers of the BNB, the Audit Chamber, etc. We think this is a more prudent decision.

 7. We have précised the persons who shall be entitled to handle proceedings. Because the so far used term "interested persons" can create the impression that all but any applicant, everyone pretending to have some interest, may handle proceedings. This should not be allowed. Imagine an employee in a state institution connected to any tender contracts, even once. Each of the losing parties, apart from appealing their tender participation as legally arranged, would start challenging all members of the law on conflict of interests committee to infinity. Furthermore, public officials who take the decisions should be protected in a reasonable manner. It is good the person for whom the procedure applies attends the proceedings, and the prosecutor shall be entitled to maintain the report or not, to appeal, etc. But these are the parties to legal proceedings we suggest to be constituted.

8. Regarding the consequences of found conflict of interests, we have suggested this conflict of interests was an additional ground for dismissal, not an independent procedure going beyond what is stipulated in the relevant specific law. Therefore we propose the procedures to run under that particular law. If dismissal of municipal councillor or mayor is requested – under the local self-government law, in the case of an employee under labour contract - under the Labour Code, if it's official or state servant – under the law on public administration, civil service etc., if it comes to other officials who are heads of relevant institutions, there’s a separate procedure for their appointment and dismissal.

9. The law makes provision for remunerations received for the period of conflict of interest, shall be confiscated. I think this is wrong. Remuneration is paid for work done. Once the work is done, then the payment is due. If there are other benefits, they may be withdrawn, but that is another matter.

10. Related persons by definition give rise to a serious problem. So instead of "relationships" we suggested "dependencies" because the word "dependency" is something slightly different and involves evidence.

11. We suggest changing the text of the declaration in relation to what we have changed in the first part of law. So far, the declaration in its first three points was similar to the declaration for the Audit Chamber. We thought on the idea to keep the declaration for the Audit Chamber, and the institutions designed to control conflicts of interest to be able to use the database of the Chamber. But finally we reached the decision to a correction to this declaration. The points concerning the declaration of abstract conflicts. Here is the wording used in the previous declaration. Contracts are concluded with entities which would have benefited from the acts and actions at the execution of the powers of office. There can be no "would have" it should be "who have" if a specific act is found, because we should be faced with a concrete conflict.

There’s a point on “Other information on private interest. Any other information is stated the declaratory considers necessary”. And behind all this stays criminal responsibility under Article 313 of the Penal Code. There is a great misunderstanding about what a declaration under Article 313 of the Penal Code is. This in principle is a legal figure that is used when you need to unload the state administration of the issuance of official notices. Then you declare yourself things that are absolutely clear and you bear criminal responsibility if they are incorrect. But criminal liability under Article 313 cannot be imputed to any declaration that certain laws require.

There is a term reading: 'Declared related persons under the meaning of paragraph 1 of the Additional Provisions, the activity of which could lead to a possible conflict of interests. Everything is in conditional mood, it is accepted that any activity related persons perform must be declared and if declared false, the declarer bears criminal responsibility. But how many of your readers would say what is the real activity of their relatives to first cousins and relatives of their spouses? There are people who do not communicate, there are people who are in bad relationships, and there are people who have good relations, but do not know about these activities. Furthermore, it is not enough only your first cousin to have a business - such as placing the joinery, for example, and you to be a Court Administrator with the Varna Court, and in this capacity to assume that, by definition, you may need to change joinery there and take into account that this is a business of your cousin.

No satisfactory answer  is found what should people who have had consulting business before they took office declare, because by the law we limit them to the places they have worked with one years before taking office, and how they should terminate the relations and maintain them. They have no right to conclude contracts with the entities they have previously worked with. When you set such a requirement, you must know what you want from a person with many contracts. What can a municipal councillor declare, or a lawyer, tax consultant or the owner of an accounting house – all of their clients probably? Obviously they have to do it because they have contracts with them.