February 11, 2003

Mr. Assen Djulgerov, Secretary General, Sofia Municipality

I would like to stress several points that have found their place in the report but which I think need to be elaborated on in the future. I'm referring to the sections of the report concerned with anti-corruption measures in the particular spheres.

First of all, I'd like to point out the emerging problem with the capacity of public administration. And this concerns all possible bodies and authorities, including the judiciary. The problem with the capacity is very serious because we keep assigning new functions to these authorities, instead of reducing them. New structures are being established and new laws are passed all the time, which require a high level of qualification. We're doing very little to find out to what extent public administration is capable of assimilating all of this and of acting efficiently in this context. It is suggested at one point in the report that it is necessary to relieve the judiciary of some of its functions. We need only recall the Roman maxim that a praetor does not care about petty matters. And this is what the reforms should be aimed at. The same applies to the sphere of executive power.

The lagging behind of our administration in terms of the European standards can be overcome and we can make significant progress only and solely through investments in the field of information technologies and training. Not enough is being done in this respect in Bulgaria although we could. I'm not talking about the financial resources but we certainly do have the human resources to set off such a development. Until 2007 we have no other chance of creating an administration that would come closer to what we observe in the West-European countries.

Let me add that we need to think more about positive motivation of the officials, about what we are giving to these people so that they are motivated to choose to honestly perform their functions.

There is very little investment in staff training. It is necessary to think about it because education should be viewed as an investment.

Several very relevant examples have been cited in the report in connection with the enforceability of the laws. This is one problem, one aspect of the quality of the legislation that tends to be overlooked. Certain public expectations are often incorporated in the legislation in an unrealistic way. There are laws that are simply impracticable. And I can guarantee, as someone with practical experience, that they will never be fully enforced with their present provisions. The encouragement of unreasonable expectations later makes people feel they have been victims of corrupt practices: I had these rights but they were denied! This generally seems to be the prevailing attitude judging from my experience and contacts with the public. We must remember that to the bulk of the people in Bulgaria corruption is a much vaster concept than to us, the experts in this field. They're inclined to ascribe to corruption all cases when their rights and claims have been denied, either because the law does not entitle them to such rights or because the particular law, by-law, or regulation is in fact impracticable.

Next I think we should also try and ensure a more adequate distribution of responsibilities. All functions and obligations should match the actual competence of the various levels in public administration, and particularly the state and municipal administration. At present all too often the responsibility is assigned to levels that, for some reason or other, even for lack of information, if you like, cannot have any real impact on the practices that we call corrupt and cannot prevent them.

And last but not least, I think we should intensify preventive control. I know from personal experience that most decision-makers would be happy to consult with the respective control authorities before making a particular decision. And they are frustrated when they are unable to do so. And this is immediately related to what I spoke about earlier, the poor-quality and impracticable legislation. Because many times the responsibility stems from provisions in the law that leave room for different interpretations and the interpretation of the control authority does not always coincide with that of the enforcing authority, not to mention the courts, which are above all this and are supposed to render the final interpretation. These divergences cannot be overcome at the present time except by creating the possibility for continuous contact between the control and enforcement authorities.

Thank you.