Report of Evaluation

of the Commission for Studying Politically Motivated Dismissals of Employees

of Territorial Agencies of the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia
Education Resource Centers, and Public Schools

Tbilisi
2016

This report is made possible by the financial support from the Embassy of the Kingdom of
Netherlands in Georgia. The contents are the responsibility of ISFED and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Netherlands in Georgia and other members
of the Commission except for their quotations.

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of this report ...................................................................................................................... 4
Whether setting up the commission was reasonable....................................................................... 5
Staffing of the Commission ............................................................................................................ 5
Commission Structure..................................................................................................................... 6
Commission Members ................................................................................................................. 6
Secretariat of the Commission .................................................................................................... 6
Commission Mandate ..................................................................................................................... 7
Duration of Commissions Work .................................................................................................... 8
Transparency of Commissions Activities ...................................................................................... 9
Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 9

Introduction
The Commission for Studying Politically Motivated Dismissals of Employees of Territorial
Agencies of the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia Education Resource Centers,
and Public Schools (hereinafter, the Commission) was established under the Order No.1375 of
the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia, dated December 14, 2012.
The Commission was set up due to the fact that following the October 1, 2012 parliamentary
elections and the formation of the new government, hundreds of individuals applied to the
Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia (hereinafter, the MES or the Ministry) demanding
that decisions about their wrongful dismissal from work be reviewed. Most of these individuals
alleged that they had been sacked for their political beliefs.1
These applicants and public in general expected that the new government would examine the
applications objectively in order to determine whether wrongful dismissals and other violations
of human rights had occurred. In light of this, the new administration of the MES decided to set
up a commission independent from the Ministry in terms of its functions and its structure, for
studying these applications and making subsequent decisions.
Purpose of this report
Having worked for over two years, on May 4, 2015, the Commission published a final report of
its activities providing an overview of different stages of complaints process, violations
identified and other issues.2 Purpose of this report is to analyze appropriateness of the decision to
set up such mechanism as well as advantages and disadvantages of the Commission.
The evaluation of the Commission is important to find out whether such institution can consider
and establish dismissals on alleged grounds of political belief, and whether it was reasonable to
establish the Commission. The analysis is even more important considering that it is the first ever
commission in Georgia set up to consider complaints about wrongful dismissals.
The case of the Commission and its experience can serve as a good example for other state
agencies where politically motivated dismissals or any other systemic violations have occurred
or may occur in the future, and the state authorities have been ineffective in investigating and
establishing such violations.

Notably, one of the reasons why ISFED decided to participate in work of the Commission was frequent dismissals
for political beliefs identified during monitoring of the pre-election campaign ahead of the 2012 parliamentary
elections. Detailed account of these facts is available in ISFEDs reports about pre-election and election monitoring
reports: http://www.isfed.ge/main/330/geo/ http://www.isfed.ge/main/833/geo/
ISFED reported concrete facts of wrongful dismissals to the new administration of the MES in its letters #01/35/12
and #01/36/12, dated November 12, 2012
2
Final Report about the Work of the Commission for Studying Politically Motivated Dismissals of Employees of
Territorial Agencies of the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia Education Resource Centers and Public
Schools, 2015, available at http://www.isfed.ge/main/890/geo/

Whether setting up the commission was reasonable

First question that one may ask about the Commission is whether the decision to set it up served
a reasonable purpose. It is the function of the state to study allegations of wrongful dismissals or
violation of rights, which must be carried out by an authorized public agency. However, in light
of the context that existed in 2012 after the new government came into power, to ensure high
public trust towards the process it was important to have the applications considered by an
independent agency to dispel any suspicions about politically motivated decisions in favor of any
particular stakeholders. Therefore, it is safe to say that the MES decision to set up an impartial
and an independent commission was reasonable.
In light of the developments at that time, public trust towards state institutions was
lacking. [Lack of public trust] was further acerbated by perceptions about politically
motivated dismissals and loss of hope that justice would be restored. Therefore, it was
important to set up an independent institution that would examine these cases objectively,
impartially and independently. 3
Staffing of the Commission
Composition of the Commission played important role in promoting public trust towards work of
the Commission and its decisions.
It was important to consider the following criteria in staffing of the Commission:

The Commission should have been free from political influence and it should not have
been affiliated with any political party or its activities;
Members of the Commission should have been adequately qualified and experienced to
consider cases and make substantiated decisions;

Fulfilling the above criteria was important for objective and qualified work of the Commission,
and eventually for building public trust towards decisions that it made.
The MES took these requirements into account and decided to staff the commission by
representatives of authoritative, experienced and impartial organizations. As a result,
representatives of organizations specializing in human rights and education, as well as the Public
Defenders Office were chosen as members of the Commission4, which largely contributed to its
successful operation.

Irma Pavliashvili, member of the Commission, Georgian Young Lawyers Association

Members of the Commission include International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy, Georgian Young
Lawyers Association, Transparency International Georgia, a representative of the Public Defenders Office,
Human Rights Priority, School-Family-Society, the International Institute for Education, Policy, Management and
Planning, Civic Initiatives and Employee Rights Protection Association
4

Commission Structure
In the process of development of the Commission Regulations, most of the time was spent on
discussions about structure of the Commission. The issue was also the subject of further
discussions, as a result of which amendments were made to the Regulations. Designing the right
structure for the Commission was important because structural and functional independence of
the Commission from any public agency was essential for effectiveness and credibility of work
of the Commission.
In light of the fact that the Commission was set up by and under the initiative of the MES, there
was a risk that the latter would interfere in work of the Commission. This may have also led the
public to question independence of the Commission. To remedy these concerns, the Regulations
of the Commission should have clearly defined guarantees for independence of the Commission
and the role of the MES in its work.
Commission Members
Originally, under the Order adopted by the Minister5, members of the Commission included
several representatives of the Ministry, in addition to NGOs and the Public Defenders Office.
Among them was the Deputy Minister of Education who served as the Chair of the Commission.
However, in agreement with other members of the Commission, in order to ensure independence
of the Commission, representatives of the Ministry stopped attending meetings of the
Commission and participating in consideration of applications. This way, their membership
became only a formality. In light of this, and in order to avoid any suspicions about
independence of the Commission, several changes were made in the Commission Regulations6,
as a result of which the MES members were excluded from membership. A representative of one
of the member-NGOs was appointed as a chair of the Commission, in agreement with other
members.
This decision was reasonable to ensure factual and formal independence of the Commission.
Representatives of the Ministry were included among members of the Commission due to
Georgias inexperience with regards to how such commissions operate. Therefore, in the
beginning work of the Commission involved a lot of learning by mistakes and making relevant
adjustments to ensure that the Commission functioned properly and was free from any type of
interference that may have raised questions about its independence and objectivity.
Secretariat of the Commission
The Regulations explicitly stated that the role of the Ministry was limited to providing
administrative support for activities of the Commission. Based on the Regulations, the Ministry
established and provided technical and administrative support for the Secretariat of the
Commission. Members of the Secretariat included head of the Secretariat and four lawyers.
5

Order of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia no.1375, dated 14 December 2012
Orders of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia no.277 and 756, dated 1 July 2013 and 30 September
2013, respectively
6

This leads to a logical question of whether activities of the Secretariat were free from the MES
influence and whether the latter could have impacted work of lawyers in light of the fact that
lawyers were compensated by the Ministry for their work. It was important for effective
operation of the Commission that the lawyers performed their functions in an objective and
professional manner. To this end, the following four measures were taken:

Lawyers were selected by the Commission based on their qualification and experience;
Lawyers were accountable before the Commission only;
Members of the Commission personally verified lawyers reports, decisions and other
documents related to applications;
Interviews with applicants were conducted by members of the Commission;
Lawyers were hired for the duration of the Commissions operation to rule out their bias
in favor of the Ministry in hopes of extending their employment.

Judging from the experience of the Commission, it is possible to achieve independence and
impartiality of such institution even when it is created upon the initiative of a public agency that
also provides administrative and technical support. This can be achieved if both sides are willing
and eager to ensure independence and objective operation of the commission and legal
guarantees allow fulfillment of this goal.
However, in order to avoid any suspicions about impartiality of the institution, it should be
independent from any public agency from administrative and technical point of view, including
from the agency that put forward the initiative to establish the institution. However, this requires
independent financial resources for functioning of the institution and additional human resources
for administrative, technical and financial support. Finding the right resources is difficult and
time-consuming because necessary funding should be secured from the state budget or from
donors. In this case, working to find adequate financial and human resources would have delayed
setting up and launching operations of the Commission, which may have caused concerns
considering public expectations and high number of applications received.
Commission Mandate
One of the important issues that should be addressed from the outset when it comes to
establishing an institution similar to the Commission is delineation of powers in order to prevent
any overlap with other agencies and to detail the scope of its competencies. Regulations of the
Commission established that the Commission was authorized to make the following decision:
Address the Minister of Education and Science with a recommendation when there is a
reasonable doubt that an individual has been dismissed from work for political belief; or
when there is no reasonable doubt about dismissal for political belief;
In this light, clearly it was the function of the Commission to determine whether an individual
was dismissed from work for political beliefs.

In addition, because the Commission was not an administrative or an investigative body, the
burden of proof fell on applicants. The Commission made decisions after examining materials
submitted by applicants and interviewing all parties concerned.
We should say that the Regulations clearly delineated functions of the Commission and the scope
of its activities. In addition, the Commission took all measures to examine each individual case,
as its resources permitted, and to make substantiated and objective decisions after hearing
positions of each party concerned. Considering the facts that the Commission uncovered, it is
safe to say that its operation has been successful. However, judging from the complexity of
issues to be examined, such commissions must be equipped with more resources and expertise to
discharge their powers.
The Commission lacked adequate resources, time or expertise for in-depth examination of each
individual issue. In the future, it is important to create an effective body that will focus solely on
issues that it needs to address and will work full time. Members of any such body should be
equipped with adequate skillset, resources and time for examination. 7
Duration of Commissions Work
Applicants expected the Commission to review their cases and make subsequent decisions in a
short period of time. However, it took the Commission about two and a half years to complete its
work due to a large volume of applications received and complexity of cases. Often the
Commission had to re-examine cases that it had already considered and invite additional
witnesses for interview, which delayed making of decision. Furthermore, each member of the
Commission had a permanent job and related work-commitments in organizations that had
nominated them for membership of the Commission. Their work at the Commission was
voluntary, and they had committed themselves to it in addition to their primary work
responsibilities because the Commission had weekly meetings, with the exception of field visits
in the regions that lasted for a few days.
As a result, it took the Commission more than two years to complete its work, which often
concerned applicants; however, each of these applicants were provided with detailed
explanations about specifics of the work of the Commission and the reason why the process took
more time than they anticipated.
Despite the number and the complexity of cases, had the Commission worked on a daily basis, it
would have been able to complete its work much earlier. Therefore, in light of high public
interest, we believe that members of such commissions should be able to commit full time to the
commission-related responsibilities. However, in this case it would have been impossible
considering that organizations that were members of the Commission would have had to make
new hires, which would have been time consuming and required additional financial resources.

Andria Nadiradze, Commission Member, Transparency International Georgia

Transparency of Commissions Activities

Any such institution is accountable before public. Considering importance of issues that such
commissions need to address, their work should be transparent and any information about
activities of the commission should be available to public.
Because the Commission attributed significant importance to ensuring transparence of its work,
information about activities of the Commission was available through the official MES website.
The Commission also hosted press conferences for media and relevant stakeholders to discuss
initial and final results of its work. It also held two meetings with applicants to provide them
with detailed information about documents and evidence that they needed to present. During
these meetings, applicants were able to ask questions.
In light of this, the Commission fully satisfied the standard of transparency.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Considering the issues discussed in this report and final results of the Commission8, it is safe to
conclude that the Commission was able to successfully deal with its large-scale, complex and
unprecedented task. Therefore, we believe that the decision to set up the Commission was
reasonable.
In light of the experience, we developed several recommendations for consideration in creation
of a similar institution. However, we also hope that there will be no need to create such agency in
a country that strives to be fully democratic:

Staffing of the Commission should be carried out in consideration of objectiveness and

qualification of potential members;
The Commission should be free from any kind of political influence;
It should have a high degree of independence and no ties (structural or financial) with
any public agency;
We recommend that its members work full time;
Work of the Commission should be transparent and any type of information about its
activities should be available to public.

Final report of the Commission available at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/890/geo/