Whose move? What problems did the result of the competition for the head of the NACP indicate?

The time for rose-colored expectations and sincere enthusiasm for the results of the work of anti-corruption institutions, as well as for the competitive selection of their leaders, is over. This experience is followed by the ability to recognize and accept reality in order to learn how to deal with it correctly, being able to receive useful lessons from it and building institutions further.

Today, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine appointed a new head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). Thus, as a result of the competition, the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) detective department, Viktor Pavlushchyk, was appointed to this position. A new four-year period has begun in the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP).

Until the last moment, there were two possible options: the choice was between Viktor Pavlushchyk, who was unfamiliar to the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), and the already well-known ex-deputy head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), Andrii Vyshnevetskyi, and the head of the agency’s anti-corruption policy department, Dmytrii Kalmykov.

However, on the day the interviews of the final ten began, a massive release of information was carried out: the representatives of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) were strongly denigrated by yet another knowledgeable “expert”. Those who ordered this clearly did not skimp on the thesis that “the potential winners were lobbied by the ex-director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU)/current deputy head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) Artem Sytnyk.” And the commission, allegedly secretly in his office, determined Andrii Vyshnevetskyi as the winner, and Dmytrii Kalmykov as his deputy. As a result, both – and according to preliminary scores they were indeed leaders – one by one dropped out of the race. Vishnevsky, having received six “no” votes, was eliminated from the game in the first round of the final voting, Dmytrii Kalmykov lost to the winner in the second. Thus, the commission (there were three representatives from the quota of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, three from international partners, and to win, the candidate needed to receive three votes from international representatives plus one from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) made its unanimous choice.

How independent and professional was the competition for this position? What might its consequences be? Will the commission's political bet on “new blood” work? Will the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) team, having received a chief – a professional head of the detective department – be able to maintain consistency and accelerate the development of the institution that underlies the entire anti-corruption bloc?

The search for honest answers to these difficult questions has led to the identification of four key problems. It is their decision that we will have to watch as a new chess game unfolds on the anti-corruption board.

First problem. The paradox of the discrepancy between methods and results

On the one hand, from the moment the competition began until the final decision of the commission, the process seemed organized at a fairly high level. Some participants describe it as at least unprecedented and exemplary transparent. The composition of the commission was adequate, and in comparison, for example, with the competition in the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), all its members demonstrated, at first glance, prudence, responsibility and impartiality. There was no illogicality, it was not clear that they were trying to help someone or, vice versa, that they were creating all sorts of difficulties for someone. “I loved participating in the competition. This was not nonsense and profanity at the stages of assessing the professional skills and psychological profile of candidates. It was difficult, but interesting,” says one of the participants.

Moreover, unlike the previous competition for the head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), where there were no legal cases or psychological tests, the selection procedure was correctly structured. And this procedure had many chances to be called meritocratic selection based on the professional characteristics of candidates. But!

On the other hand, the final decision was unexpectedly made not according to professional, but primarily according to political criteria. And the commission, during the discussion at the meeting and the subsequent briefing, quite clearly articulated these criteria: “new blood”, “a person who has been involved in the practical fight against corruption all his life” (meaning the criminal prosecution of judges); “fought near the city of Bucha.”

​Of course, each of these criteria has its own value, and participation in hostilities has the highest value, but the problem is that these are purely political criteria that are not directly related to assessing the level of compliance of candidates with qualification requirements. Why was it necessary to select all these smart cases? Why was it necessary to organize this whole cool professional competition then? This is the paradox: the competition claimed to be a professional selection and should have been so by law, but the final decision was made on the basis of completely different criteria. Moreover, if we compare the published results of the competition stages, it is obvious that the winner was not the first according to the main professional criteria, except for the general ability test (the highest 137 points). However, its function, according to the assurances of the commission itself, was only to determine who should be admitted to the second stage of the competition – performing practical cases on the ability to apply legislation, ethical leadership, strategic vision, assessing the psychological profile and level of trustworthiness of candidates.

At the final press briefing, commission member Laura Stefan explained the commission’s position: “Points are only one element that we took into account when making the decision. We published what we thought was appropriate. Throughout the competition, we actively communicated with external and internal stakeholders of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), collected information using different methods, and the procedure, which is prescribed by law, allows us a certain flexibility. We do not have a positive attitude towards the fact that the winner can be selected only by taking into account mathematical calculations. It is important to feel a person, look into his eyes and understand whether he is honest or whether he can tell a lie. And can he admit that he is not like Wikipedia, that is, he is not an expert in all areas and still has a lot to learn, as the winner did during the interview. Such a position of the candidate speaks volumes. We made decisions about people, and here we definitely need to take into account those elements that cannot be calculated.”

Was the commission able to find a reasonable balance of the winner's qualities? We will see this in the future.

Second problem. Incomplete fulfillment of the mission and exceeding the mandate of the commission

During interviews, candidates (coming from quite different fields) were often taken to extremes – either into pure “cosmic” prevention, or solely into intimidation: administrative and criminal prosecution that can await violators. And in this case, the commission often pointed out to candidates that the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is a complex body that has as many as five (!) areas of authority, and all of them are imperatively defined by law. That is, the candidate had to show a balanced approach in order to ultimately be able to manage the powerful analytical and organizational machine that the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) has become over the past four years, even despite all the existing internal problems.

But as a result, the commission exceeded its mandate and at the same time was unable to fully complete the mission entrusted to it by law. Having chosen a purely law enforcement officer, which he is according to his profile, for this position (this time not even a prosecutor, but the head of the detective department) without management experience (a couple of years of leading a dozen detectives in the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) department does not count). This important position was filled by a person who, in none of the documents or at the interview, does not show a systematic, comprehensive approach and does not demonstrate an understanding of the deep essence of the institution’s work, the relationship between different areas of its powers and interaction with the outside world.

That is, the commission selects an impractical candidate who obviously does not meet the job requirements, since he, his profile and the vision demonstrated by him do not cover the entire range of tasks facing the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). This means that the commission takes on the function of determining the vector of development of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) for four years. And this vector is questionable, since it provides for a potential drift from a policy-forming body for preventing corruption towards a quasi-law enforcement body to combat the consequences of corruption.

But this is not the function of the competition commission. The law does not give it such powers. Moreover, the commission is not a legislative body. The commission’s task is simply to check the level of professional compliance of the candidate with all the requirements and select a balanced candidate whose vision and skills correspond to the full range of tasks assigned by law to the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). And among dozens of candidates for this position there was a choice of just such candidates, who had both rich expertise in the field of anti-corruption and sufficient experience in managing organizations and projects. But none of them became the winner.

Including Dmytrii Kalmykov, who was the main competitor of the winner in the second round of the final voting. Both Viktor Pavlushchyk and Dmytrii Kalmykov   are respectable – and the commission confirmed this by letting them through to the finals – but with different managerial and expert backgrounds. As a result, the political figure Kalmykov, with his blood spoiled, according to the logic of the commission, from his connection with the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), turns out to be out of the game. Why did it happen so? Because at the finish line political criteria suddenly turned on and replaced professional ones? Because Kalmykov’s parents live in occupied territory and this could become a tool of influence? So, the new commander-in-chief Syrsky’s dad and mom live 200 kilometers from Moscow. And the mother of Pavlushchyk’s partner recently went to Moscow, and Pavlushchyk could not explain the reasons for this trip at the interview.

Third problem. Imminent consequences for the institution

Firstly, taking into account the identified problems, the seemingly exemplary competition once again undermines and discredits the very idea of professional competitive selection. At first, our expectations are not unreasonably high, but at the end we only get justifiable bewilderment. Which, as a result, demotivates professionals to take part in such competitions in the future. Even within the framework of so-called positive selection. By the way, this trend has been evident in the judicial system for a long time.

Secondly, the competition undermines the idea of permanence and continuity of institutions. Continuity in their activities. And the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is a body that must be stable and consistent like no other – it is on this foundation that its independence is based as a fortress of anti-corruption and integrity. And this is how it is defined in the law. This is why there is a competitive selection of the head, a four-year tenure for him, a narrowed list of grounds for his dismissal, civil service in the apparatus, protection from any external influences (protected financing, a stable salary level and many additional guarantees). That is, by creating this body, the legislator himself is already showing us that the most important thing in the work of any institution is constancy and consistency. In this context, the very idea of the main criterion for selecting “new blood” is puzzling.

Thirdly, no matter how we feel about the ex-head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), Oleksandr Novikov, we cannot help but recognize the fact that for the first time in the history of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), it was during his tenure that constancy and institutional stability appeared in this body. And now there was a unique chance to continue this. That is, to gain a foothold at the good level that Novikov and his team managed to achieve. Take the conclusions and recommendations of an external independent assessment as a basis and move on, knowing how everything works. The October report on the enlargement of the European Union contains recommendations from the European Commission to Ukraine, and there is an action plan for the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, taking into account the above-mentioned recommendations and conclusions. There is a government action plan for the implementation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) program for Ukraine, the Anti-Corruption Strategy and a program for its implementation until the end of 2025. Declaration and verification of declarations has been restored. Public reporting of political parties and audits of their financial activities have returned, as have significant improvements in approaches to checking declarations and monitoring the lifestyle of officials. Everything is now available. Roll up your sleeves and start working faster and faster. And this was a unique opportunity to make a quantum leap in development in two years.

Are you seriously sure that it is not lost?

Fourthly, the staff of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is demotivated. If the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) were headed by someone from within the institution, then everyone in it would understand that it makes sense to try hard and work 16 hours a day, because everyone has a chance to become the head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) in the future. But the competition committee essentially said to the team: “You are all nobody, you have stagnation here, the blood has deteriorated, a transfusion will not help, only fresh blood will save the body.” On the day the competition ended, silver “winner” Dmytrii Kalmykov wrote a post on Facebook, where he announced that he was resigning from the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP).

​Fifth, the winner's profile. Security officer, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) officer, head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) detective department. This does not mean at all that Pavlushchyk is bad, he can be a very cool department head and investigator. He studied this, and he definitely knows how to be effective at it. After all, it was Pavlushchyk’s department that investigated key cases in the judicial system: the case of the head of the District Administrative Court of the City of Kyiv (DACK) Pavlo Vovk, the head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine Kniazev, etc. But the purpose of the competition for the position of head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is not to evaluate the old skills of managing a dozen detectives. The purpose of this competition is to assess the ability to manage four hundred analysts, lawyers, managers of public policy, projects and programs, to manage the implementation of international obligations of Ukraine in the field of anti-corruption policy, etc.

Paradoxically, almost none of the commission members during the entire competitive selection focused on the need, first of all, for management skills and deep expertise in the field of anti-corruption policy. Although the experience of managing large systems and groups of people is listed in the methodology as a priority by the commission itself.

Fourth problem. Candidates from the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP)

Of course, speaking about candidates from the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) (and in the final, in addition to Dmytrii Kalmykov and conditionally Andrii Vyshnevetskyi, there was also the deputy head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) apparatus, Oleksandr Starodubtsev), we are not talking about some ideal representatives of the institution. Moreover, I personally have questions for all of them that have been repeatedly voiced on the pages of our publication. But here the point is not in surnames, but in the principles of selection, which obviously need to be adjusted.

In fact, the discussion about where to grow the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) (and not just its future leader) began a long time ago. And not only within the framework of an external independent assessment (it, unfortunately, has not yet been reflected on and turned into an action plan to improve the institution in the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) itself due to Novikov’s position of denial), but also during the political process in the country. On which the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), as the main anti-corruption expert of legislative initiatives, has direct influence. And here it is worth recalling the case of the notorious corruption law No. 5655 on urban planning reform, which will form the basis for all post-war reconstruction and distribution of donor assistance. The silence of the head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), Oleksandr Novikov, that by the second reading the deputies did not take into account all the recommendations of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) after the anti-correct examination of the bill, contributed to the vote in the institution for a bill with direct corruption risks. The public life-and-death struggle between the public and the author of the bill, head of the Servant of the People party Olena Shuliak, continues for the second year.

At this point the names of Dmytrii Kalmykov and Andrii Vyshnevetskyi converge as former subordinates of Novikov. Dmytrii Kalmykov, in his essay on the development strategy of NAPC, named anti-corruption expertise among the successes of the institution. And this strategy for #5655 was truly brilliant. However, Novikov put an end to it. Therefore, it is important to understand what Dmytrii Kalmykov   meant by highlighting this as a success. And did he somehow try to resist, watching how the head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), to please the politicians on Bankova Street, was burying the work of his unit.

As for Vishnevsky, he responded in writing to requests from public organizations and associations that the discussion of the bill was not transparent, and the comments of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) were not taken into account. However, he did not enter the public sphere as an ethical civil servant. For which, as a specialized deputy, he received a bunch of rather harsh complaints from the public and the media. But at the same time, it is impossible not to notice that it was Andrii Vyshnevetskyi, according to our sources in the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), who was fired by Novikov because, as the deputy in charge of international cooperation, he opposed the illegal maintenance of the so-called list of international war sponsors on the official website of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). And also, based on national interests, he opposed the fact that in international technical assistance projects, the beneficiary of which is the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), the margin essentially remaining as profit to foreign or international private companies implementing the project amounted to as much as 60%. He considered this unfair to our warring country.

All this is actually the path to a big conversation about the powers of the head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), which are very similar to authoritarian ones. And also about the safety instruments that are critically necessary so that no head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) can afford to substitute his orders for the decisions of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, as Novikov did. Not to mention the pressure he puts on his subordinates.

This is the level at which there is already a discussion about the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) and its leader as a subject, and not a surname. But what do the commission members know about this discussion? I don’t think that public organizations gave them the information they needed on this matter. (Although the discussion of the results of external independent assessment in the competition program was a red thread.) Because public organizations, including the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPCU), as well as the Public Council under the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), whose members are now unanimously writing about how they will control the new head, also have not publicly given an answer about the international audit report. But they could have stopped all of Novikov’s authoritarian impulses from the very beginning. But they didn't stop it. And this widespread failure to mention problems shows how wrong everything is in our country, not only in government, in the anti-corruption bloc, but also in the public sector.

...So, no matter who consciously or unconsciously moved the pieces during the competition, now, of course, the move is up to the new head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) – Viktor Pavlushchyk. During the interview, he stated that he wanted to grow. Not to build an institution, but to grow. Which, in fact, is clearly visible from the career steps he takes: logical participation in the competition for director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), and then suddenly a romantic attempt to become a member of the Supreme Council of Justice (SCJ) under the presidential quota.

But only in this case, the real growth for the head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) Pavlushchyk will be, first of all, complete separation from possible connections with Bankova Street, the purgatory of which he could not help but go through when applying for this competition. It has long been not customary in the presidential office to allow people anywhere whose loyalty you are not sure of. And the detective of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), observing the situation within the authorities under a microscope, could assume that this, to put it mildly, is not the right personnel position for independent growth. Growth is the need to separate from acquaintances from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) in order to retain the best characteristics and the best employees in the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), correcting what the predecessor screwed up. Growth is the maximum penetration into the depths of the processes of an institution, the tasks and powers of which are so global (as are the expectations of society) that one can either immediately rush into space, or remain somewhere on the side without taking an active part in solving problems.

The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is not just an organ. The agency not only checks the declarations and lifestyle of officials, conducts anti-corruption examinations of bills and monitors the implementation of anti-corruption programs by ministries, it also deals with the financing and inspections of political parties, that is, it directly influences elections, representative democracy, etc.

Moreover, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), in accordance with the adopted law on lobbying, will now also maintain a register of lobbyists – adding various organizations, including public organizations, to it.

Therefore, no matter how you look at it, Viktor Pavlushchyk will have to try to become similar to Wikipedia, that is, have knowledge of various topics in order to grow himself and allow the institution to grow. And the representatives of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) need to understand whether the man in uniform has fresh blood from the same democratic group.