"No science is immune to the infection
of politics and the corruption of power."
Municipality governor’s significant other works in municipality as an accountant. An accountant answers to the chief accountant. Should the municipality governor release their significant other from the office in the case of accepting the position?
It is definitely not required to release their significant other from the Office. Nor is it necessary to restrict the right to make transfers, as these are routine activities where the accountant has no right to decide on the payment. However, one should observe the work of the future municipality governor and, if necessary, let the council or the person appointed by the council make the descisions affecting the significant other. In addition, it should also be made sure that the reduction procedure is in a format that can be reproduced. It should be noted that in such cases, the delegation can not be delegated and instead of municipality governor, the right to the decision should be held by the council.
As one option, the council may, by its regulation, grant the dispatch authority of the head of the government to be handed over to the government in corpore, the head of the government will remove themselves from specific decision and therefore the exception to the procedural restriction is not necessary. The delegation of the subordinate decision-making is, in principle, prohibited. The omission of the procedural restriction is also possible, publishing a notice on the municipal webpage.
A head of an agency run by a rural municipality government has emplyed their spouse and completed an employment contract with them, in which the employee’s salary is determined. How to evaluate the head of the administered agency’s actions?
The head of the administered agency can not make decisions and actions that are associated with their spouse, including the salary, work conditions, holidays etc. Silmilarly, the head of the administered agency may not delegate such a decision. In such a situation, the decisions and actions associated with this particular employee must be made by the municipality government or a person designated by it.
A member of the rural municipality government is a member of the commission formed to implement the support programm. Can they simultaneously make decisions as a member of the rural municipal government and a member of the commitee or should they, in that case, remove themselvs from either one of these?
If the commitee itself does not carry out its actions, the member of the rural municipal government may also be a member of the commitee. If the member of the rural municipal government themselves apply for the funding, they must consider removing themselves.
An issue of a building permit is being discussed at the rural municipal government meeting. The permit will be issued to one of the member’s child’s spouse. According to the anti-corruption act a child’s spouse doesen’t fall under associated people. Owever, the child has children with a spouce, to whom the member of the rural municipality goverment is a grandparent. A building site has been aquired and construction has begun during the time they were already living together. In such a case, is the member of the rural municipality government required to remove themselves from discussing and deciding on this specific question?
According to the anti-corruption act the child’s spouse is indeed not listed in the close relatives cathegory. However it should still be evaluated if the child’s spouse being the addressee could still influence the decision of the member of the rural municipal government. For example the decision may be influenced by the economic or other interests related to their grandchildren. Also the decider may be associated with the addressee in some other way, for example if the child’s spouse guarentees the rural municipal goverment member’s loan or the latter lives in their child’s spouse owned house. Moreover the removing themselves from the decision may sometimes be an issue of political culture and transparency.
In the local government council commitee, the transfer of the right to organize student transport services to the NGO is to be discussed. One of the commitee member’s company is already providing student transport services to the municipality. Committee does not make the decision, but gives their opinion. The decision on the transfer of service will be made by the council. The member providing the service is not a member of the council. Should a service providing member of the committee withdraw from the debate?
Even though the committee does not make the decision and its position is not binding, they still shape the opinion on the transfer of transport. Every member of the committee is able to influence this decision, and there is a conflict of interests in the case described above. The obligation to remove themselves from the specific decision is required by § 11 (1) 2) of the CPS, which states that the limit of actions is also valid even if an official is aware of the economic or other interests of themselves or a person related to them that may affect the action or the decision.
Is the chairman and a member of the audit committee, who were previously joined as the governor of a municipality and a member of rural municipality government, obliged to remove themselves from inspections and audits, which examines the actions of the agency administered by the municipality authority and its manager. Are these individuals obliged to remove themselves from the inspection of the joined municipality last year’s financial year?
The Anti-Corruption Act does not oblige withdrawal in this situation. However, the withdrawal is still justified if they were to directly examine their own actions in the previous position.
A member of the audit committee is also a member of the committee of the SA managed by the local government unit. Is a member of the audit obliged to remove themselves from the SA inspection?
If the member of the audit committee is appointed to the foundation council based on their position. In other words appointed by the committee. Then there would be no need to remove themselves from the inspection. If this is not the case, and the member of the committee does not represent the minicipality in the SA council, then they need to remove themselves from the inspection. It is advisable to remove themselves if their own actions as a member of the SA council is inspected.
The village society submitted to the municipality committee an application for the building rights for fifty years. The property belongs to the rural municipality, but is used by the village society. Among the members of the committee, there are people who are in the village society. Are the people who are the members of the village society obliged to remove themselves from this decision?
According to § 7 of the Anti-corruption Act, a juristic person is considered an associated person if the person of interest is a member of the management or control authority or owns at least 10% of its shares. A regular member of a village society is not a member of the management nor a member of the control authority and therefore, the village society is not associated with them. If there are no other circumstances that associate the member of the municipal council with the village society, then the regular member is not obliged to remove themselves from the decision.
A member of the council has to make a decision on the restructuring of the public institutions’ actions and the approval of the later formed public institution’s structure. A council member’s spouse is working in that public institution.
The council member should remove themselves if the decision affects their spouse and how substantive and economic is the restructuring from the spouse’s point of departure. In the case of a formal restructuring that does not relate to the economic situation or position, they would not need to remove themselves from this decision, according to § 11 (3) 6) of the KvS.
Although the council could formally be regarded as the „boss“ of the Council Chairman, the approval of the dispatch orders of the chairman is clumsy. § 11 (3) of the QMS allows the application of the exception to the notion that procedural restrictions are not applied if the replacement of an official is not possible due to the lack of a person who corresponds to the requirements of the substitute. Based on it, a notice on non-application of the procedural restrictions is published promptly and permanently on a local government website. For comparison, according to § 33 (5) of the Parliament Act on the Status of Members, Parliament member’s (including the chairman) dispatch order is approved by the Board of the Parliament.Similarly, it is possible at the level of the local government, by a regulation, to decide on issues related to the implementation of the QMS, to decide whether the dispatch orders of the Council Chairman (respective member) involves a competent council “presidency” or such, whose composition must also be decided on. In this case the one dispatched can remove themselves from the decision and it is no longer an exception to the procedural restrictions.
On the Council’s agenda is a point, in content of which is to make a political statement regarding support towards one association. A member of the council is a shareholder of this association of 15%. Can a member of the council võte and participate in the preliminary discussion?
A member of the council associated with the association can not võte, because the decision is made with regard to a juristic person associated to them. (Section 11 (1) 1) of the KvS. This member of the council removes themselves from discussions, but if the rest of the quorum have questions about the actions of the association, they can only answer these questions, but no tas a member of the council, but as a representative of the person of interest or as a person who knows the subject.
Is a member of the council, who is simultaneously the head of an agency administered by the municipality, allowed to participate in the process and vote on the local government budget?
The budget of the local government is the general act of the law and a person is allowed to participate in the voting and discussion as it acts as an exception to the procedural restrictions according to § 11 (3) 1) of the CRS. However, if the discussion of the budget also leads to a discussion on the position and salary of the head of the agency, it is advisable to remove themselves from the decision.
A municipality governor has an formed an agreement with the company as a result of procurement procedure. The contract was signed with the company, one of whose owners is the spouse of the municipality governor. The municipality governor has removed themselves from the procurement procedure and from signing a contract. Based on the agreement, the invoices are submitted to the municipality. Is the rural municipality governer allowed to confirm these invoices?
The most correct is the situation where the council organizes the replacement of the municipality governor in the case of a municipality governor’s procedural restriction. In this case, the whole process does not have to be redone for each invoice. However, the non-application of the prodecural restriction is not prohibited if the basis and conditions are met.
The rural municipality government announces a competition for a school principal and one of the candidates is the chairman of the same rural municipality council who, for the past months, has been acting as the principal.
If the chairman in the rural municipality council applying for a principal’s position does not participate in the selection process of the new school principal in any way, it is not a matter of corruption or conflict of interests. However, as the chairman of the council, they have to ensure that they do not make or withdraw decisions relating to the school they manage.