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 Service 1, 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 selfgoverning 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.

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, 3 2 municipalities of Shida
Karli, 6 municipalities in Kakheti 3, 4 in Samtskhe-Javaskheti 4, 11 in Imereti 5, 6 in
Samegrelo Zemo-Svaneti 6, 5 in Racha-Lechkhumi Kvemo Svaneti 7, 4 in KvemoKartli 8, 3 in Mtskheta-Mtianeti 9 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 territories 10 commission members asked irrelevant
questions, pressured and discriminated against some candidates based on their
political affiliation and gender.

Kaspi, Khashuri, Gori

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
2
3

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 nongovernmental organizations to monitor the process of interviews but certain
restrictions applied. 9 12 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 organization 14 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
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
12

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.

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-sajarosamsaxurshi.pdf
15

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 selfgoverning 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 predesigned 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 BoniGorodoki 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 selfgovernment 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. 5 16
local self-government agencies allowed only a few non-governmental organizations to
monitor the process of interviews but certain restrictions applied. 9 17 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
Ozurgeti City Hall, Rustavi City Hall, municipalities of Akhaltsikhe, Ozurgeti, Azpindza, Kareli, Telavi,
Terjola, Sagarejo
17

 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.