International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy

Monitoring of Selection and Certification Process in Civil Service

Summary Report

Reporting period: October 2014 November 2015

December 22, 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 the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy and do not
necessarily reflect the views of USAID, American people or the United States Government.

Findings of the Monitoring of Selection and Certification Process in Civil Service

Methodology
From October 2014 through November 2015, International Society for Fair Elections
and Democracy (ISFED) monitored tests and interviews 1 within selection and
certification process in civil service in all self-governing cities and municipalities of
Georgia.
73 monitors of ISFED evaluated the process of tests and interviews by using a predesigned questionnaire 2 . ISFED was actively working with Commissions for
Selection and Certification and local self-government (LSG) bodies to obtain
information about outcomes of selection process in general and in particular, names of
candidates appointed to vacant positions. Based on the information, ISFED performed
comparative analysis to determine whether these commissions evaluated candidates in
a fair manner during interviews and delivered objective decisions3.
ISFED studied the Decree of the Government of Georgia no.412 on rules of selection
process envisaged by the Law of Georgia on Civil Service, in addition to regulations
of 70 different Commissions for Selection and Certification4. ISFED also analyzed
the section of the new law on Civil Service, which deals with rules of selection
process and rights of candidates. The law was adopted by the Parliament of Georgia
on October 27, 2015.
ISFED published 3 interim reports about findings of the monitoring of the selection
and certification process5.
This report covers legal assessment of the process of selection in civil service and
presents key trends identified by the monitoring. The report also features ISFEDs
opinion about the new law on Civil Service adopted by the Georgian Parliament on
October 27, 2015.

Legal assessment of the process and key trends identified

Principles of selection process and practice of courts

ISFEDs monitors observed tests for over 1000 candidates and interviews with nearly 8000
candidates; in addition, tests and interviews were not held in the city of Poti.
2
Because of restrictions placed by LSG entities, ISFED was unable to attend commission meetings
were final decisions were made about candidates. Therefore, ISFEDs assessments are largely based on
observer reports about how well candidates performed during interviews, how many questions he or
she was able to answer, whether his/her answers were correct and if s/he was knowledgeable about
important issues relevant to a specific job opening.
3
ISFED was unable to perform comparative analysis for 40 self-governing entities due to restrictions
placed on monitoring and access to information.
4
ISFED examined regulations available at www.macne.gov.ge;
5
See interim reports: http://www.isfed.ge/main/808/geo/; http://www.isfed.ge/main/855/geo/;
http://www.isfed.ge/main/896/geo/.

By virtue of amendments to the Law of Georgia on Public Service 6 , executive

authority has been delegated with the power to design regulations for selection
process in civil service.
By its June 18, 2014 Decree no.412, the Government of Georgia adopted regulations
for selection process envisaged by the Law of Georgia on Civil Service. The Decree
regulates procedures for selection of candidates to fill vacant positions in civil service,
stages of the selection process, establishment of Commissions for Selection and
Certification and their activities.
Based on the Decree no.412 of the Government of Georgia, Sakrebulos (local
councils) elaborated regulations of Commissions for Selection and Certification,
setting out rules of selection process in further detail.
By virtue of the Government Decree no.412, selection is evaluation of candidates
based on a pre-determined criteria for a specific job (opening), as prescribed by
applicable Georgian legislation, whereas selection principles include: legality,
fairness, public access, transparency, non-discrimination, objectiveness,
impartiality, collegiality, correctness.
Decree no.412 does not elaborate any further on the above principles; neither does it
make a reference to a specific legal act that would explain their meaning. Although
individual provisions of the decree reflect the above principles, it is important for the
law to expressly define their meaning, in order to avoid any inconsistent application
of the principles.
Notably, out of the regulations of 70 different commissions examined by ISFED, 60
define key principles of the selection process, while 10 do not provide any such
principles7.
Unlike the decree no.412, regulations of 66 different commissions approved by
Sakrebulos explain the meaning of basic principles of competition8, which is very
important for promoting consistent interpretation of the principles; however,
regulations of the commissions in the following three municipalities do not provide
any definition of the principles: Dmanisi, Kaspi and Mestia.
One of the most important principles of selection process is public access Decree
no.412 does not define what public access means, which creates certain obstacles to
transparency and openness of the commissions. Regulations of 70 different
commissions analyzed by ISFED provide rules for accessing legal acts (about
selection procedures) and proceedings of commission meetings. However,
regulations of 66 commissions do not contain any rules for allowing third parties
to attend commission meetings to monitor work of the commission. Regulations
of commissions in the following four municipalities are the only ones that set out such
rules: Khulo, Zestaponi, Kharagauli and Chiatura.
6

Amendments to the Law of Georgia in Civil Service, dated September 20, 2013, available at:
https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2030263#DOCUMENT:1.
7
Kobuleti, Shuakhevi, Batumi City Hall, Batumi Sakrebulo, Kharagauli, Chiatura, Mestia, city of
Telavi, Gardabani Sakrebulo, Tbilisi Sakrebulo.
8
For instance, regulations of commissions for selection and certification in the following
municipalities: Abasha, Adigeni, Ambrolauri, Aspindza, Akhalkalaki, Akhaltsikhe, Akhmeta,
Baghdati, Bolnisi, Gardabani, Gori, Gurjaani, Dedoplistskaro, Vani, Zestaponi, Zugdidi.

During the monitoring, ISFED identified instances of violation of the principles of

public access. In particular, ISFEDs representatives faced obstacles to accessing
public information and implementing monitoring.
ISFED filed 850 formal requests for public information with select self-governing
entities and Commissions for Selection and Certification. Over 300 requests were
responded in violation of applicable laws by 61 LSG entities and 52 commissions. In
particular, 43% of LSG entities and 68% of Commissions for Selection and
Certification responded to ISFEDs requests for public information deficiently, in
violation of important legal requirements 9 . In addition, 26 commissions 10 declined
ISFEDs requests for information about final results of selection and certification
process. 19 of those 26 commissions declined the requests stating that the information
requested by ISFED was categorized as personal data, while others were reluctant to
clarify the cause of their refusal or did not respond to ISFEDs requests at all.
ISFED believes that the above commissions and LSG entities acted illegally by
refusing to provide access to the public information requested. Because the process of
selection and certification in civil service at the local level is an area of public
interest, any documents must be publicly accessible. This will allow determining
whether commissions evaluated candidates fairly and delivered objective and legal
decisions. To this end, cooperation with organizations that monitor and evaluate the
process of selection and certification, and inform the public is especially important.
In addition to obstacles to accessing public information, ISFED faced difficulties in
monitoring. In particular, ISFEDs right to monitor the process of interviews was
restricted completely or to a certain extent in 15 self-governing entities11, which
suggests lack of uniformity in matters related to public access to commission
activities. Furthermore, ISFED was not allowed to attend any of the commission
meetings where final decisions were made.
ISFED filed 7 complaints in court over violations of principles of selection12. Courts
decisions were made based on a broad and fair interpretation of individual
principles, including public access, legality, equality and objectiveness.
ISFED filed two complaints in Gurjaani and Akhtaltsikhe District Courts over
problems with access to public information, requesting access to information about
selection process in self-governing entities13. Notably, Gamgeobas of Gurjaani and

Total of 142 self-govenring entities (including 59 Gamgeobas, 71 Sakrebulos, 12 City Halls); 77

commissions for selection and certification.
11

ISFED was allowed to monitor the process of interviews in the following 5 self-governing entities
but with certain limitations: Tbilisi City Hall, Kutaisi City Hall, Gori City Hall, Telavi City Hall,
Lanchkhuti Municipality. The following 10 self-govenring entities refused to allow monitoring of
interviews: Ozurgeti City Hall, Rustavi City Hall, and municipalities of Akhaltsikhe, Ozurgeti,
Aspindza, Kareli, Telavi, Terjola, Sagarejo, Tetritskaro.
12
District courts of Zestaponi, Tsageri, Akhaltsikhe, Gurjaani, Tetritskaro, and Kutaisi Appellate
Court.
13
ISFED requested access to the following information: number of vacant positions for which
candidates were competing in selection process and number of positions filled as a result of selection
process; number of positions filled by temporary appointees who were working in the position
concerned before announcement of selection process; total number of individuals who failed
tests/interviews but were temporarily appointed to the position for which they were competing.

Akhtaltsikhe municipalities granted ISFEDs request and provided public information

after the complaints were filed and before court hearings were scheduled.
District courts of Tetritskaro and Akhaltsikhe made important decisions following
ISFEDs complaint and interpreted the issue of public access to work of commissions
for selection and certification. The complaint was filed in reaction to decisions of a
commission, denying ISFED the right to attend interviews, stating that because the
commission was already manned by members of labor unions, independent
specialists, it was unreasonable to allow representatives of any other NGOs to attend
the process.
The court clarified that commission for selection and certification of municipal
employees is a public entity and therefore, its activities must be in compliance with
requirements of the Law of Georgia on Civil Service and the principles reinforced by
this law.
In its activities the commission must abide by key principles of public service,
including openness. The court explained: openness is one of the most important
grounds that determines trust of citizens and public in general towards all agencies
and especially towards public agencies. Clearly, monitoring does not mean any
interference in the process of interviews. Objective monitoring rules out any bias.
Further, the court believes that public access should not be narrowly defined as
access of interested individuals to results of selection process. Rather, interested
individuals should have access to meetings of commissions and be able to
monitor their activities.
In addition, commissions for selection and certification in civil service at the
municipal level is a corporate public agency, whereas drafting and adoption of
decisions by corporate public agencies are subject to a special legal regime because
their decisions fall under the area of a special public interest. Under Article 32 of the
General Administrative Code of Georgia, sessions conducted by any corporate public
agency must be open and public, except when information concerned constitutes state,
commercial or personal secret. By virtue of Article 34 of the Code, a corporate public
agency must a week ahead publicly announce about forthcoming meeting, including
its place, time and agenda, as well as about its decision to close such meeting, if
applicable. If some issues on the meeting agenda contain secret information, the
public agency should close part of the meeting that discusses secret information.
Zestaponi District Court granted the claim of 21 plaintiffs represented by ISFED.
The court invalidated decision of selection committee announcing that the plaintiffs
employment applications were unsuccessful, and ordered the commission to hold
repeat interviews.
The plaintiffs participated in a competition for employment at Terjola Municipality
Sakrebulo and Gamgeoba. The candidates succeeded the first and the second stages of
the selection process but after the third stage the commission refused to hire them.
The candidates claim that in its work the commission violated the principle of
openness by refusing to allow interested parties, including ISFEDs representatives to
observe the process of interviews. The commission did not use any evaluation
checklist, as mandated by the regulations for evaluating candidates skills. Its
assessments about work experience of candidates were biased; in particular,
candidates with less experience received higher scores.

Zestaponi District Court invalidated interviews held without using a pre-determined

evaluation checklist. The interviews should have been conducted in abidance by the
Regulations of the commission for selection and certification, adopted under the
Resolution no.37 of Terjola Municipality Sakrebulo. The regulations mandate that the
commission evaluate candidates based on a pre-determined scheme and criteria but
the commission failed to follow these regulations.
The court also explained that as a corporate public agency the commission is
obligated to hold open meetings that are accessible to public. It may deny access
only when the meeting room is full and it may not hold any more people. The court
explained: public has the right to know whether the issue concerned was discussed
during the meeting in a comprehensive manner, views that each member of the
commission expressed and deliberations that led to the final decision. Otherwise, it
would be impossible to evaluate work of a public institution and its individual
members.
Tsageri District Court granted claim of Tamila Gabidzashvili, represented by
ISFED. The court granted her claim in full by invalidating the results and ordering
Tsageri Municipality Gamgeoba and the commission for selection and certification to
repeat the interview process.
Ms. Gabidzashvili participated in a competition for the position of Representative of
Tsageri Municipality Gamgebeli in Tvishi Administrative Unit. She succeeded in first
and second stages of the selection process and was invited to interview but she did not
win the competition. The interview questions were inappropriate, with no relevance to
candidates professional credentials and competencies; instead, they were motivated
by political bias, in violation of applicable regulations of Georgian law. Based on
regulations of the commission for selection and certification, each candidate should
answer a set of identical questions, prepared beforehand; however, the commission
did not use any such questionnaire during the interviews.
The court explained that without using identical questions and pre-determined
criteria, candidates and interested persons would always question fairness of the
selection process. In addition, the court is unable to evaluate disputed acts adopted
following the selection process, because they have been adopted without any
deliberations and discussions by the commission. This way, the court concluded that
the commission violated the principles of legality, equality, fairness and
objectivness.
Kutaisi Appellate Court partially granted the appeal of Darejan Talakhadze, who
was represented by ISFED in court.
ISFED filed in Sachkhere District Court for invalidation of results of selection and
requested repeat of the selection process but the claim was rejected. ISFED filed
subsequent appeal in higher court.
Darejan Talakhadze participated in selection process for the opening of a specialist at
the Department of Coordination of Representatives of Sachkhere Municipality
Gamgebeli. Ms. Talakhadze believed that the commission for selection and
certification of employees of Sachkhere Municipality held interviews in violation of
legal regulations and favored a candidate with fewer scores and less experience in
civil service.

Kutaisi Appellate Court partially granted ISFEDs appeal by invalidating decision of

the commission to select a candidate other than Darejan Talakhadze as a winner, but it
rejected the appellants request to repeat the process of interviews.
ISFED believes that invalidation of the decision means that results of the competition
no longer have a legal foundation and therefore, are illegitimate. Consequently, the
local self-government must hold a new competition to fill the vacant position in
abidance by applicable legal requirements.
Access of third parties to all stages of selection process, which will ensure
transparency and openness of commission meetings, must be elaborated and regulated
by the Decree no.412 of the Government of Georgia and commission regulations. In
addition, to facilitate objective and fair process of selection, commission must treat all
candidates equally. In particular, in evaluation and selection of candidates, it should
use identical questionnaire and selection criteria.

Rules of formation of commissions for selection and certification

A standing commission for selection and certification is established under the Decree
no.412 of the Government of Georgia, for recruitment of civil servants. For LSG
entities commission chair is appointed by a representative body of self-government
Sakrebulo, while for public agencies commission chair is nominated by head of the
agency and appointed by head of the Civil service Bureau.
Chair of the commission determines size of the commission and its members.
Members of a commission may include representatives of trade unions, independent
experts (who are not working for public agency or LSG entity concerned) and HR
personnel.
Article 11 of Decree no.412 of the Government of Georgia delegates commission
chair with the power to select members of the commission but it does not contain any
imperative stipulation about participation of trade union representatives and
independent members in the work of the commission, which means that the said
provision may be abused to select members based on their political affiliation.
The concept of civil service reform approved under Decree no.627 of the Government
of Georgia aims to create and improve operation of commissions for selection and
certification. According to the concept, members of each commission should include
independent experts to ensure fairness and transparency14. As noted above, existing
regulations do not include any such obligation.
ISFED believes that in order to promote fair, neutral and transparent work of
commissions for selection and certification, commission chairs should be required to
include individuals who are not working for public agencies concerned among
members of commission. Such formation of commissions for selection and
certification will increase trust towards their work and promote recruitment of
members based on their professional qualifications.

14

Mechanisms for protecting rights of candidates

See the concept of civil service reform: http://csb.gov.ge/uploads/matsne-2582972.pdf;

By virtue of Decree no.412 of the Government of Georgia, candidates who are

competing in selection process have the right to appeal in complaints commission and
then in court, or they may waive their right to apply to complaints commission and
instead, file in court as prescribed by Georgian legislation. By virtue of Article 15 of
the Decree, establishment of a complaints commission falls under discretionary
powers of head of an agency concerned, i.e. s/he makes a decision on creating or not
creating a complaints commission during selection process.
Similar to the Decree of the Government of Georgia, regulations of commissions for
selection and certification elaborated by LSG entities allow candidates who are
competing in selection process to appeal decision in complaints commission and then
in court or to file straight in court over competition results or violation of competition
procedures.
Regulations of 63 commissions contain rules about establishment and composition of
complaints commissions, and regulations of 7 commissions15 do not contain any such
rules.
In ISFEDs view law should provide obligation to establish a complaints commission.
This will ensure resolution of disputes without courts involvement, within reasonable
timeframe and at low cost. In addition, although regulations of most commissions
contain rules for establishing complaints commissions, regulations of all commissions
should envisage establishment of complaints commission as one of the means to
protect rights of candidates.

Different stages of selection process

Testing
ISFED monitored the process of testing in all LSG territories. Tests were organized
by the National Examination and Assessment Center.
ISFEDs observers reported that on the most part the process of testing was wellorganized; certain technical deficiencies were observed but because these deficiencies
were limited in scale and most of them were resolved in a timely manner, they did not
impact the testing process.
Most of the complaints were filed in complaints commission test contents or test
results. Majority of complaints were rejected as ill-founded. Notably, candidates
did not receive any detailed instructions on how to draft and file complaints, which
later created certain problems.
As some participants stated, their actual test scores were different from those
published on official website; however, they could not prove it because at the end of
testing process they did not receive any document that would allow them to check and
verify their answers, which they would use as evidence.
ISFED believes that passing score for tests (as high as 75% in some municipal
territories) is unreasonably high for selection of employees of LSG bodies. The
15

Baghdati, Tskaltubo, Kharagauli, Mtskheta, Adigeni, Kareli, Gori

minimum score should not vary according to LSG bodies; instead, a normative act
should set a uniform threshold for all self-governing territories. In addition, 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.
In the process of recruitment it is important to take into account candidates
specialization. Some local government employees successfully handle their day-today responsibilities without utilizing in-depth knowledge of legal issues that make up
significant part of tests. We believe that the key criterion for recruiting highly
qualified employees is their level of professionalism, while legal issues and skills
should account for only a small part of testing.
Interviews
One of the most important stages of selection process is interviewing candidates.
ISFED monitored interviews in all self-governing cities and territories. According to
observers, on the most part interviews monitored 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 12 self-governing territories (Kareli, Batumi, Zestaponi, Terjola, Khulo,
Tsageri, Gardabani, Kaspi, Keda, Gori, Akhmeta, Tbilisi) commission members
and other officials demonstrated bias towards certain candidates, asked
irrelevant questions and harassed interviewees.
ISFED believes that equal conditions must be created for all candidates during
interviews; commission members should treat all candidates equally, notwithstanding
their political affiliation or sex. In addition, such acts should be examined
comprehensively and immediate further actions must be taken by relevant authorities.

Evaluation of candidates and forms of evaluation

Evaluation forms are one of the most important instruments for evaluation of
candidates, allowing whether a commission selected and evaluated candidates in a fair
and objective manner. Therefore, ISFEDs monitoring focused on analysis of
evaluation forms. ISFED examined 43 evaluation forms envisaged by commission
regulations16.
We identified the following important trends:
-

16

Out of 70 commission regulations, evaluation forms are envisaged by 43,

meaning that evaluation form is not approved as a legal document and it
may not be used as evidence when needed;

Evaluation forms envisaged by commission regulations, accessible at: www.macne.gov.ge.

40 out of 43 evaluation forms are almost identical and they dont allow
objective and fair evaluation of candidates. In particular, evaluation forms
are not individual; rather, there is one general evaluation document, which
makes it impossible to record comprehensive information about each
candidate and evaluate each individual in a thorough manner;

Evaluation form lacks necessary criteria. It entails a single criterion evaluation of professional skills - which should be split into sub-criteria.

Evaluation scale (weak: 0-50 points, medium: 50-57 points; strong: 75-100
points) has unrealistic range of points. There is a very big difference between
the three subsets of points. It is unclear how the scale measures skills of
candidates or how points are assigned. In addition, the scale allows of several
different interpretations and abuse.

Below is an example of evaluation form:

N
o
1
2
3
4
5

Name of candidate

Evaluation of professional skills

Weak
Medium
Strong
0-50 pt 50-57 pt 75-100 pt

Evaluator's
comments

Evaluation forms of commissions for selection and certification in Terjola, Rustavi

and Kharagauli municipalities are better:
Evaluation form of Terjola Commission is individual for each candidate and unlike
other questionnaires, it entails three different criteria. However, scale of evaluation
and definitions of each criterion is problematic, similar to other evaluation forms.
Evaluation form of Rustavi Commission is also individual, scale of evaluation is more
realistic and definitions for each criterion are provided. However, there is still room
for improvement of the definitions.
Evaluation form envisaged by regulations of Kharagauli Commission is one of the
most comprehensive forms examined by ISFED. It contains most realistic sale of
evaluation and provides a set of questions, their purpose, criteria and their definitions.
In addition, comments field in the questionnaire allows for detailed evaluation of each
candidate. The field of general evaluation allows commission members to see the
overall picture of a candidate and whether s/he is an appropriate candidate for a
specific position.
ISFED believes that evaluation forms must be defined by commission regulations as
an official legal document. In addition, existing evaluation forms should be further
worked on and improved, in order to allow comprehensive, fair and objective
evaluation of candidates.

Identification of winning candidates

ISFED was actively working with Commissions for Selection and Certification and
LSG bodies to obtain information about outcomes of selection process in general and
in particular, names of candidates appointed to vacant positions, to perform
comparative analysis. ISFED was unable to perform comparative analysis for 40 LSG
bodies because of challenges and restrictions in accessing information.
In other LSG bodies where ISFED was able to analyze the process of selection of
candidates, it found that on the most part commissions evaluated interviews and
identified winning candidates in an objective manner; however, ISFED believes that
commissions could have made a better choice for 100 vacant positions17.
ISFED did not agree with decisions of selection commissions and LSG bodies for 100
vacant positions because of the following important trends identified during the
monitoring:

During selection process some commissions and LSG bodies did not select
winning candidates for certain positions. They did it on purpose, to appoint
temporary or acting employees. Repeat selection was scheduled in order to
allow temporary appointees who failed tests to participate in the new selection
process in hopes that they would be able to succeed the next time
(Gamgeobas of Adigeni and Khobi);
Selection process was considered ruined despite the fact that respective
commissions could have chosen winning candidates (Gamgeobas of
Ambrolauri, Tkibuli, Chiatura, Khobi, Chkhorotsku, Kobuleti and
Khulo; City Halls of Batumi and Ambrolauri);
Candidates with lower qualifications were favored over highly qualified
candidates in Gamgeobas of Ambrolauri, Baghdati, Tskaltubo, Khobi,
Zugdidi, Chkhorotsku, Kobuleti, Dusheti, Khulo, Keda and Chokhatauri,
Sakrebulo of Batumi and City Hall of Batumi. In addition, in some
instances temporary appointees were favored over other more qualified
candidates (Batumi City Hall, Kaspi Gamgeoba and Keda Gamgeoba);
Poorly qualified candidates were chosen because respective commissions had
no other choice. ISFED believes that the commissions should have scheduled
a new selection process to recruit more qualified employees (Gamgeobas of
Baghdati, Zugdidi, Kobuleti, Khulo and Kaspi, and Batumi City Hall).

ISFED believes that in selection process commission should use pre-determined

criteria for all candidates and treat individuals who do not currently work for LSG
body but have applied for vacant positions on equal basis with existing municipal
employees. In addition, when there is no choice of suitable candidates for especially
important and high-level positions, repeat selection process should be scheduled.

New Law of Georgia on Civil Service

17

Out of nearly 3200 positions.

On October 27, 2015, the Parliament of Georgia adopted the new law on Civil
Service. The new law is important for implementing civil service reform to help
facilitate creation of professional, transparent, effective and unbiased civil service.
Successful implementation of the reform is one of the preconditions for having
democratic and effective governance in the country. We welcome the fact that the
law was drafted and adopted with participation of different stakeholders.
However, we believe that certain regulations need to be revised in order to
ensure formation of transparent and stable civil service.

Selection
Fair, competitive and objective selection process is important for creating a
professional and transparent civil service. Selection process should aim to attract
qualified personnel to civil service. Selection process in civil service in Georgia has
always been a problematic issue, often criticized by public.
We believe that the new law fails to address challenges that exist in the area. Article
34 of the draft law regulates filling of vacant positions in civil service on the basis of
competition.
The draft law differentiates between the following two types of selection: open and
internal selection. Based on the proposed changes, lower (fourth category) vacant
positions will be filled on the basis of open selection, while higher (third, second and
first category) vacant positions will be filled on the basis of internal selection,
meaning that candidates will be selected from existing civil servants. The law allows
holding of an open selection process for filling higher vacant positions only in cases
of internal selection process is unsuccessful.
Filling of almost all categories of vacant positions by means of internal selection
process will prevent ordinary citizens from finding employment in public service. In
addition, the existing regulation is in conflict with the principle of equal access to
civil service. The principle is guaranteed by Article 13 of the draft law stipulating that
all citizens of Georgia must be provided with equal opportunity to access civil
service, based on their skills, qualification and professional readiness.
On the one hand, it is important for the state to create the system of civil service in
which civil servants will be rewarded for their professionalism, while on the other
hand all citizens must be provided with equal opportunity for finding employment in
civil service. Announcing open selection process only to fill fourth category vacant
positions will reduce the possibility of ordinary citizens to find employment in civil
service and will thus curtail their constitutional right. Some argue that the aim of
internal selection process is to give an opportunity of promotion to existing
employees but we believe that the argument is invalid, because existing employees
would be free to participate in open selection process to prove that they are more
worthy of a particular position, on equal basis with other candidates. In addition,
while promotion is important to incentivize employees, we believe that competitive
recruitment of qualified civil servants is far more important of a cause.
Article 42 of the draft law does not specify the deadline for the selection commission
to make its final decision after all stages of selection process are complete, posing the

risk of artificially delaying the process; neither does it determine the nature of
decision made by the commission whether it is binding or not for management of
the public institution concerned.
Article 117 establishes legal remedies for candidates participating in selection
process.
By virtue of para.1 of Article 117, a candidate that fell short of the basic formal
requirements of the application can file with the Civil Service Bureau demanding
verification of lawfulness of the decision made by selection commission. The Bureau
should make its decision within two days, and inform the applicant as well as the
selection commission of the decision.
The law does not provide for any legal consequences of the Bureaus decision about
candidates complaint in particular, it does not state whether the decision is binding
for selection commissions or not.

Probationary period
By virtue of Article 45 of the law, probationary period for a civil servant is 12
months. Probationary period is important to evaluate whether a person concerned is fit
for the position; however, the 12-month long period is unreasonably lengthy and does
not help create a stable environment in civil service. It is quite possible to evaluate an
individual based on his/her qualification and experience within a shorter period of
time for instance, in six months.

Protection of rights
Article 118 protects rights of a civil servant. Protection of rights of civil servants,
including from violation by managers of public institutions or other officials with
their arbitrary and unfair decisions is important for democratic governance. Therefore,
the law must provide for clear and explicit guarantees for the protection of rights of
civil servants.
Para.3 of the Article stipulates that a civil servant must be immediately reinstated
based on courts decision; however, it also stipulates that a civil servant will not be
reinstated if it is impossible to do so. Such an ambiguous exception to the law is
unacceptable, because it leaves room for its broad interpretation and abuse for unfair
refusals for reinstatement. If courts decision finds that a person was illegally
dismissed from work, it is imperative that his/her rights are restored by reinstatement.
The law must provide an exhaustive list of cases when reinstatement is impossible,
including reorganization of a public institution, its liquidation and/or merging, in
which the rule of mobility must apply to the person concerned. When it is impossible
to provide employment based on the rule of mobility, in addition to corresponding
compensation, the person concerned must also be provided with remuneration for the
time s/he was forced to miss at work.

 Key Findings
Principles of selection process and practice of courts

18

During monitoring ISFED faced obstacles to accessing information. In

particular, 43% of LSG entities and 68% of Commissions for Selection and
Certification responded to ISFEDs requests for public information
deficiently, in violation of important legal requirements. 26 commissions
declined ISFEDs requests for information about final results of selection
and certification process. 19 of those 26 commissions declined the requests
stating that the information requested by ISFED was categorized as personal
data.

ISFEDs right to monitor the process of interviews was restricted

completely or to a certain extent in 15 self-governing entities, which
suggests lack of uniformity in matters related to public access to commission
activities;

ISFED was not allowed to attend any of the commission meetings where
final decisions were made, in violation of the requirement of transparency of
a commission as a corporate public agency. This called objectivity of
decisions made by commissions into question;

Regulations of 70 different commissions analyzed by ISFED provide rules for

accessing legal acts (about selection procedures) and proceedings of
commission meetings. However, regulations of 66 commissions do not
contain any rules for allowing third parties to attend commission
meetings to monitor work of the commission. Regulations of commissions
in the following four municipalities are the only ones that set out such rules:
Khulo, Zestaponi, Kharagauli and Chiatura. Neither commission regulations
nor Decree no.412 of the Government of Georgia does not regulate access of
third parties to the process of making final decisions, which somewhat limited
ISFEDs monitoring;

Commissions of Terjola, Tsageri and Sachkhere violated principles of

legality, equality, fairness and objectivity by not treating all candidates on
equal basis and failing to use identical questionnaires and relevant criteria in
some cases;

ISFED filed 7 complaints in court over violation of principles of selection

process 18 . In two cases municipalities of Gurjaani and Akhaltsikhe
municipalities granted ISFEDs request before court hearing was held. As to
five complaints filed in Tetritskaro, Akhaltsikhe, Zestaponi, Tsageri and
Kutaisi appellate courts, 4 were satisfied in full and 1 was satisfied in part. We
welcome the fact that courts made their decisions based on a broad and
fair interpretation of individual principles, including public access,
legality, equality and objectiveness.

Court explained that as a corporate public agency the commission is obligated

to hold open meetings that are accessible to public. Court believes that public

Zestaponi, Tsageri, Akhaltsikhe, Gurjaani, Tetritskaro district courts and Kutaisi Appellate Court

access should not be narrowly defined as access of interested individuals to

results of selection process. Rather, interested individuals should have access
to meetings of commissions and be able to monitor their activities. Court also
explained that without using identical questions and pre-determined criteria,
candidates and interested persons will always question fairness of the selection
process. In addition, the court is unable to evaluate disputed acts adopted
following the selection process, because they have been adopted without any
deliberations and discussions by the commission.
Rules of commission formation
-

Article 11 of Decree no.412 of the Government of Georgia delegates

commission chair with the power to select members of the commission but it
does not contain any imperative stipulation about participation of trade union
representatives and independent members in the work of the commission,
which means that the said provision may be abused to select members
based on their political affiliation.

Means for protecting rights of candidates

-

Decree no.412 and regulations of 63 commissions contain rules for

establishing and staffing complaints commission, and regulations of 7
commissions (Baghdati, Tskaltubo, Kharagauli, Mtskheta, Adigeni,
Kareli, Gori) do not contain any such rules.

Tests
-

On the most part the process of testing was well-organized; certain technical
deficiencies were observed but they did not impact the testing process.

Passing score for tests in some municipal territories (75%) was

unreasonably high;

Most of the complaints were filed in complaints commission test contents or

test results. Majority of complaints were rejected as ill-founded.

Some participants stated, their actual test scores were different from
those published on official website; however, they could not prove it because
at the end of testing process they did not receive any document that would
allow them to verify their answers, which they would use as evidence.

Interviews
-

According to observers, on the most part interviews monitored 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.

In 12 self-governing territories (Kareli, Batumi, Zestaponi, Terjola,

Khulo, Tsageri, Gardabani, Kaspi, Keda, Gori, Akhmeta, Tbilisi)
commission members and other officials demonstrated bias towards certain
candidates, asked irrelevant questions and harassed interviewees.

Evaluation of candidates and forms of evaluation

Out of 70 commission regulations, evaluation forms are envisaged by 43,

meaning that evaluation form is not approved as a legal document and it
may not be used as evidence when needed;

40 out of 43 evaluation forms are almost identical and they dont allow
objective and fair evaluation of candidates. Evaluation forms of
commissions for selection and certification in Terjola, Rustavi and
Kharagauli municipalities are better.

Identification of winning candidates

-

ISFED did not agree with decisions of selection commissions and LSG bodies
for 100 vacant positions because of the following important trends identified
during the monitoring:
- During selection process some commissions and LSG bodies did not
select winning candidates for certain positions. They did it on purpose,
to appoint temporary or acting employees. Repeat selection was
scheduled in order to allow temporary appointees who failed tests to
participate in the new selection process in hopes that they would be able
to succeed the next time (Gamgeobas of Adigeni and Khobi);
-

Selection process was considered ruined despite the fact that respective
commissions could have chosen winning candidates (Gamgeobas of
Ambrolauri, Tkibuli, Chiatura, Khobi, Chkhorotsku, Kobuleti and
Khulo; City Halls of Batumi and Ambrolauri);

Candidates with lower qualifications were favored over highly qualified

candidates in Gamgeobas of Ambrolauri, Baghdati, Tskaltubo,
Khobi, Zugdidi, Chkhorotsku, Kobuleti, Dusheti, Khulo, Keda and
Chokhatauri, Sakrebulo of Batumi and City Hall of Batumi. In
addition, in some instances temporary appointees were favored over
other more qualified candidates (Batumi City Hall, Kaspi Gamgeoba
and Keda Gamgeoba);

Poorly qualified candidates were chosen because respective

commissions had no other choice. ISFED believes that the commissions
should have scheduled a new selection process to recruit more qualified
employees (Gamgeobas of Baghdati, Zugdidi, Kobuleti, Khulo and
Kaspi, and Batumi City Hall).

New Law of Georgia on Civil Service

-

A number of regulations in the new law of Georgia on Civil Service about

selection process, probationary appointments and protection of rights of civil
servants fail to create transparent and stable civil service.

Results of ISFEDs monitoring suggest that lack of legal regulations about the process
of selection and certification in general and in particular, about selection criteria and

access to public information had a negative impact on overall process and created
obstacles to monitoring and accessing of public information by ISFED.
ISFED believes that the above problems in LSG bodies engendered suspicions about
objectiveness of evaluation of candidates and final decisions made, and resulted in
complaints and concerns expressed by many candidates. Considering that ISFED was
refused access to the process of final decision-making, comprehensive evaluation of
fairness and transparency of the process of selection and certification, and
objectiveness of final decisions made by commissions is impossible.

Recommendations
Principles of selection and public access to commission activities
1. Public agencies must provide access to public information in a timely manner
and in full. Further, uniform approach to releasing public information must be
established across all self-governing agencies, and access to personal
information must be provided in consideration of issues of public concern. In
particular, list of candidates (indicating their names and surnames) selected by
commissions and competition results must be accessible to public;
2. Local self-government bodies should give all interested candidates an
opportunity to monitor the process of certification and competition in a
comprehensive manner, and provide their access to all stages of the process
testing, interviews and final decision-making, in order to prevent any
questions about fairness of the process;
3. Access of third parties to all stages of selection process, which will ensure
openness and transparency of commissions work, shall be defined and
regulated by Decree no.412 of the Government of Georgia;
4. Commissions must evaluate candidates according to pre-determined criteria,
in order to ensure credibility and fairness of final decisions as much as
possible;

Rules of commission formation

5. In order to promote fair, neutral and transparent work of commissions for
selection and certification, commission chairs should be required to include
individuals who are not working for public agencies concerned among
members of commission. Such formation of commissions for selection and
certification will increase trust towards their work and promote recruitment of
members based on their professional qualifications;

Means for protecting rights of candidates

6. Law should provide obligation to establish a complaints commission. This will
ensure resolution of disputes without courts involvement, within reasonable
timeframe and at low cost;

Testing
7. Passing score for tests (75% in some municipal territories) is unreasonably
high for selection of employees of LSG bodies:
- The minimum score should not vary according to LSG bodies; instead, a
normative act should set a uniform threshold for all self-governing
territories.
- In addition, 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.
8. After taking a test, candidate should be given a document that can be used for
checking answers and results;
9. Civil 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.
In the process of recruitment it is important to take into account
candidates specialization. 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 the key criterion for recruiting highly qualified
employees is their level of professionalism, while legal issues and
skills should account for only a small part of testing.

Interviews
10. 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
Evaluation of candidates

11. Evaluation forms should be defined by commission regulations as an official

legal document. Existing forms should be further worked on and improved, in
order to allow comprehensive, fair and objective evaluation of candidates.

Identification of winning candidates

12. Commission should use pre-determined criteria for all candidates and treat
individuals who do not currently work for LSG body but have applied for
vacant positions on equal basis with existing municipal employees.
13. In addition, when there is no choice of suitable candidates for especially
important and high-level positions, repeat selection process should be
scheduled.

New Law of Georgia on Civil Service

14. Because a number of regulations in the new law of Georgia on Civil Service
about selection process, probationary appointments and protection of rights of
civil servants fail to create transparent and stable civil service, the said
regulations should be revised.