Several NGOs launched an initiative to control the integrity of public officials

Journalistic investigations are an important source in initiation of cases by the public institutions responsible for verifying the integrity of public persons, but their impact is small. The effect of journalistic investigations and the ability of public structures to finalize the cases uncovered by the media have been discussed at the round table titled “Civil Society Involvement in Promotion of Integrity in Public Service.”

Petru Macovei, the executive director of the Association of Independent Press (AIP), believes that many of the changes in the country occurred due to the pressure of the civil society and of the media on authorities. “Were we to compare the efficiency of civil society and of the government, the score would definitely not be in favor of our government,” Petru Macovei said.

At the same time, the AIP director thinks that, in recent years, journalists have been doing more professional investigations: “There are materials that have been paid for, and other things unpleasant for us, journalists, but we also have some very well documented investigations.” The expert expressed his regret with the fact that although some very good journalistic investigations appeared, they did not result in great changes beyond the media quake that they produce. “Their effect can be that of a media bomb, as journalists disclose corruption schemes and conflicts of interest, but their impact has so far been weak,” Petru Macovei remarked.

Cornelia Cozonac, president of the Journalistic Investigations Center, mentioned that many of the public officials that had been subjects of media investigations managed to keep their jobs. “Many of those we have written about still hold top positions in the Government and in other public institutions.” The journalist claims that in the past two years the media have become more careful in monitoring the integrity of public officials.

“Many journalistic investigations transformed into public campaigns, for example the investigations concerning the property of judges and high-ranked officials and the corruption schemes they are involved in,” Cornelia Cozonac specified. She pointed out that authorities had reacted to some journalistic investigations, but no case had been finalized: “There are well-documented articles, with evidence, but legal authorities initiate proceedings only for show, to prove that they do react, while cases fail to get to court.”

Victor Stratila, vice president of the National Integrity Commission (NIC), recognized that in many cases the institution he represents initiated checks based on journalistic investigations, but in most cases the officials concerned had not been penalized due to imperfect legislation, while the commission has limited competence. According to Stratila, the NIC risks transforming into an “authority without authority.”

“The Contraventions Code allows three months for application of a contravention penalty. Until the media write about an eventual conflict, which happened about two months before, until we initiate our own verification, until we send it to the National Anticorruption Center, the deadline expires and our work is practically of no avail,” the NIC vice president said. Victor Stratila spoke about the need to adopt a draft law that would improve the work of the commission. He mentioned that such a draft had been registered in the Parliament, but it had not yet been examined. The official also complained about the fact that the NIC has insufficient personnel. “Some employees left because of small salaries, compared with the salaries of other institutions involved in combating corruption. Now, out of the necessary 18 employees, we have only eight, of whom three are in managerial positions and three persons have been employed only recently,” he said.

At the round table, several public organizations, including the Journalistic Investigations Center, the Association of Independent Press, the Center of Analysis and Prevention of Corruption, ADEPT, and the Soros Foundation-Moldova, launched a new civic initiative aimed at intensifying control over the integrity of persons holding public offices, and at increasing the efficiency of the mechanism used to control and verify their possessions, properties and interests.

The Civic Initiative for Integrity in Public Service is in fact the new reformatted Civic Initiative for a Clean Parliament, in which the same organizations monitored candidates in parliamentary elections in 2009 and 2010.