published in Eastern Economist #408, November 26, 2001
I came across an interesting story while sipping a thimbleful of gut-wrenching espresso in the VR cafeteria. It really made me think about corruption and how to do battle with it.
For instance, just a few weeks ago, a commissioner at the Securities and Stock Markets Commission was murdered outside his home. Nobody had ever heard of the guy before this happened. And nobody has heard about him much since, either. I’m still trying to dig up something on that one.
This particular story I was reading was about efforts to bring elected officials into line in the legislature. It’s also about the milder forms of “discouragement” that can be brought to bear against those who really try to do so.
After a scandal several years ago involving cash and plain envelopes, the legislature introduced the post of commissioner to oversee the maintenance of standards among members of parliament and the government. The commissioner can set up an inquiry and call on witnesses during the process of investigating fiscal shennanigans. The findings of this commissioner are then adjudicated by a standards and ethics committee.
Back in 1999, the legislature appointed a certain Ms Filkina to the job. Unlike her predecessor, who was very careful not to tread on any important toes, the new commissioner was asked to take “a tougher approach.”
The lady did what she was supposed to do.
The first thing that the commissioner found was that one member of the Cabinet had failed to declare a half-million dollar loan from another member of the same Cabinet.
“Hah,” said the standards and ethics committee. “Small stuff.” The guilty member was issued a rebuke and nothing more was done.
Then the commissioner found that a vice premier had failed to declare an apartment rented to him at below market value by the Transport Union.
“Pshaw,” said the standards and ethics committee. “Even smaller stuff.” The guilty party was simply encouraged to declare the rental deal so that it would look above-board.
Next, the commissioner found that a deputy had improperly applied parliamentary funds to his personal campaign in the previous election.
“Dear me,” said the standards and ethics committee. “Totally trivial stuff, really.”
Then Ms Filkina reported that key witnesses had been put under pressure not to cooperate with her in this case.
“Let’s not get carried away,” said the committee sternly. “It’s really not on, to accuse the right honorable gentleman of such heinous things.”
But the commissioner produced a recording of a telephone conversation where the irate elected official in question berated the person who was to speak to Ms. Filkina’s inquiry.
“Hrummph!” said the standards and ethics committee, banging the gavel loudly on its desk. “We dismiss your findings on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence!”
In three years, only once was any kind of mild penalty enforced against a highly-placed incumbent the commissioner had investigated. When a former minister was found to have received US $300,000 from a well-known magnate while still a member of parliament, the standards and ethics committee did suspend him from the legislature for three weeks.
But it did so only after a delay of three months. This happened to coincide very neatly with a general election.
It seems as though Ms Filkina has done her job admirably. But she’s had little cooperation in doing so. And she’s been sniped at from all sides, to boot. Called “Mrs. Longnose” and the “witch-hunter in chief.” One former speaker openly referred to the commissioner as “lacking political acumen.”
There’s no doubt about that.
The lady was foolish enough to really apply the parliament’s own rules on disclosure and conflicts of interest. Worse, she was really willing to tread on mighty toes. As she had been requested to do, from the start.
Now, after three years of thankless endeavor, Ms Filkina has been told she will not be reappointed to the post. Normally, the position is renewed for a second term of three years. Of course, say her employers, she’s welcome to re-apply for the job along with everyone else.
In effect, Ms Filkina has been sacked.
Oh yes, the most interesting point about all of this. I read about this in The Economist. Ms. Filkina’s name is actually Elizabeth Filkin. She was investigating British officials and this all happened in London.
I suppose we can look forward to the day when there is “only” this kind of coercion in Ukraine. More on Mr. Romashko next time.* •
–from the notebooks of Pan O.
* See "Murder at the SEC" at www.wordsmith.org.ua for the full story.
No comments:
Post a Comment