Two and a half years have passed since Odysseas Michaelides took over as Auditor General. It shook the stagnant waters in areas that had never been explored so deeply and so persistently.
In the early stages, it was supported by parties, politicians but mainly by citizens of all shades, although many expected to see where it went. That is, if he would "throw a few rifles for the price of weapons" or if he would continue in the same pattern. He continued and this resulted in him breaking up even with those who appointed him. Ministers and MPs are "holding his face" while others are supporting him.
He continues to mingle "where he is not sown", makes statements to the media, responds to those who criticize him (either through the media or through facebook) and states that this will continue.
He lost friends, in the sense that some saw him as dealing with issues in their field and even criticizing them. From his work so far with the public and wider public sector, he finds that the situation was worse than he expected, in terms of corruption.
Did he receive threats while on duty? Not directly, indirectly yes. Ministers call him and complain, which he considers legitimate. Odysseas Michailidis opens his papers in today's interview with Phileleftheros. (The second part of Mr. Michailidis' interview will be published tomorrow, Monday).
Two and a half years have passed since you took over as Auditor General and I would like you to tell us, based on your experience so far, if the situation is worse than you expected or in relation to the situation in the Ministry of Transport where you exercised internal control.
At the Ministry of Transport, we mainly examined issues of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Electromechanical Services, where from time to time corruption problems were identified, sometimes quite serious. It is, however, a fact that the image I have formed by controlling the wider public sector is clearly worse than I expected.
Much worse in terms of what?
There is corruption in the central state, but obviously due to the stricter procedures that are followed, there are fewer cases. Although in the central state we also had very serious cases such as those of the landfills and landfills, scandals involving a large number of employees. At this point I want to emphasize that the vast majority of civil servants are honest, but I cannot ignore the fact that rotten apples also exist. This is the case with the central government.
Now, let's move on to public law organizations and especially to the local authorities and the organizations that are under these authorities. My position is that persons in political power should refrain from awarding tenders or even making decisions from which a contractor may benefit or be wronged, for example.
For the central government, this distinction between political power and public administration has existed since at least 1997. Outside the central state, we see mayors and municipal councilors concluding contracts and deciding on contractors' claims. Recently, the latter changed with the Rules of Procedure passed by Parliament before the elections.
Unfortunately, due to the involvement of elected officials in making such decisions, serious corruption problems have been identified, which are increased in relation to the cases in which the role of officials has been decisive in decision-making. This should not surprise us, nor should politicians be offended when we talk about political corruption. There are reports in the EU that there is an increased risk of corruption in politics. To protect themselves, politicians themselves must demand their release from their involvement in such matters.
The average citizen says "okay, some councils or even organizations have been identified, arrested and tried or are still being tried, but we haven't seen a single contractor go to court." What do you say about that?
For the ongoing cases, we must not prejudge that the same procedure will be followed and that we will not see non-officials being taken to court. Our effort is to provide evidence, and we are cooperating with the Police in this regard, so that people beyond the public officials can be brought before the courts.
Now, with regard to contractors in court cases, they may have avoided accountability before the Court, but, depending on the outcome of the Investigators' Registration and Registration Council's investigations, some may be subject to disciplinary action or be excluded from its work. Now that the new legislation has been passed since April 2016, they will be able to be excluded even when they admit that they have been involved in bribery cases, contrary to what was previously the case that they should have been convicted. from court.
In your opinion, what is it that breeds corruption?
There must be three conditions, what we call the triangle of fraud or the triangle of corruption.
First, an official must have the opportunity to engage in corruption, which requires reduced control systems, incomplete and opaque procedures, the concentration of power in a few persons without various levels of decision-making, bureaucracy, etc.
Second, there should be so-called financial or other pressure, ie someone in need of money or being greedy, etc.
The third factor is to have the necessary justification, that is, to convince oneself that what one is doing is acceptable. For example, one might think that it offers so much that "nothing is running" to get some money. We have heard, for example, a convicted former government official publicly say that he has offered the country much more than he received, as an excuse, that he was allowed to abuse his position. Shame.
The issue of justification is a matter of society's culture. We need to see how we can raise the morale of the society and whoever thinks of doing something, be fully aware that it is both illegal and immoral. Unfortunately, today our society has not reduced some acts to acts of corruption and the average citizen may not realize all the implications of an illegal act.
Ethics should not be allowed to be discounted by society, and for any immoral act by a public figure, society should clearly express its disapproval. And if the act is illegal, there must always be accountability.
Which department officials are most prone to possible corruption?
More prone to possible corruption are officials who, by their position, have more discretion in exercising their duties. The broader the discretion of an official to approve or reject something, the more likely it is that he or she will be involved in corruption cases, of course being prone.
At this point, I must make it clear that the above does not imply that anyone with the discretion to handle a case means that they will be involved in corruption. It's just that in some places the ground is more suitable.
We can also say that the risk of a serious corruption case is higher the higher the amount that an official may be called upon to decide. If the citizen's benefit is small, that is, if he is going to lubricate to secure a driver's license, then he offers a relatively small amount, while if the decision of an official endangers millions, from the approval of e.g. of a large mansion complex, then the affected person can suggest a relatively large amount in the form of oil.
Are such cases being considered?
Yes, at this time we are examining in a specific Municipality, which acted as an Urban Planning Authority, some cases that we forwarded to the Police, which are examining them with our own assistance. In the investigation, we sometimes ask for the assistance of the Department of Urban Planning in order to determine whether licenses were correctly issued and, if not, whether they were issued in exchange for exchanges, something that the Police is examining.
Which of the cases you handled are considered the most important?
The first cases we dealt with were the case of SAPA, which started with our service, the case of TEPAK, which also started with the initiative of our service, and the process of administering justice has been launched.
SAPA is already proceeding to recover money that is considered to have been given illegally. Similarly, we are in consultation with TEPAK to demand a refund and a renunciation of sinful building rentals.
The third case concerns the Larnaca and Nicosia Sewerage Councils. In this case, our service forwarded our findings to the Attorney General, who in turn, after studying them, forwarded them to the Police and the investigations are at an advanced stage.
It should be noted that even the case of the Kosi landfill, in which the investigations culminated after the mayor of Paphos complained about the Paphos landfill, much of the information and data used along the way came from previous investigations by the Audit Office. were the background of the police investigation.
Unfortunately, in this case, the Council of the Kosi Landfill, which consists of representatives of the various Municipalities and communities, hinders the termination of the sinful contract. Every now and then they remember another reason to block the announcement of a tender that will allow the award of a new contract with a price of less than 30 euros per ton, and the termination of a contract with a cost of more than 65 euros per ton.
I recently asked for the help of the Minister of the Interior. The Deputy Minister of Interior, Mr. Nikolaou, responded immediately, but to no avail. It's unbelievable what's going on. Opportunity for their citizens to be informed, so that they know who is burdening them with such unbearable burdens.
There are several rumors about the Income Tax and the control it exercises. Did this aspect concern you or will it concern you?
The Audit Office has always been in charge of controlling the tax departments since most of the state revenues come from them.
If you look at our annual reports in recent years, you can see typical reports of people with incompatible property with income tax returns, without the relevant departments having exercised the powers provided by law to obtain them. or have not exercised them in time. The only way to check if the Tax Department is effectively exercising its responsibilities is to check specific tax cases.
Sometimes these checks concerned specific groups of professionals, sometimes they were based on information or complaints about tax evasion, especially for people who seemed to be living with great comfort without the source of their income being obvious. Our audits are always post-mortem, since in fact the Tax Department has the ability to check the correctness of a tax return after its submission. So we who control the Department will check it later. After all, those who evade taxes usually do so for a number of years.
The Tax Department is now a Department in which two already large Departments have been merged, the Income Tax and the VAT Service. Does this bother you at all?
Of course, because it has become a huge Department. As well as the fact that the difficult economic conditions that our country is going through impose, as never before, the intensification to the maximum extent of the effort to combat tax evasion.
That is why for about a month now we have been deciding with our colleagues in charge of controlling this Department that in the coming months, around the beginning of next year, we will conduct for the first time a broad management audit on tax issues.
The audit will focus mainly on the way in which in recent years, but also recently, the current heads of the Tax Department have applied the relevant legislation to determine the tax imposed, especially in the context of compromises with taxpayers who file objections. That is, if a company is notified that it owes e.g. € 5 million and lodges an objection claiming that he owes € 1 million and in the end a compromise is reached and he is required to pay € 2 million. we will consider whether this was reasonable and whether it is justified by the data of the audited company.
We will exercise control over the broader powers surrounding the Tax Commissioner and the fact that the practice of compromise has been in place for many years. This test will be extensive, but always sampled.
Have you received threats to handle certain cases?
There was no direct threat. However, they were covert, such as through people who have been in contact with me and tell them "tell the Auditor General that with what he is doing he can find his trouble", or that "what he is doing can be a criminal offense and confuse." ». Most of the time I believe that the anxiety of the bearers of the message is genuine, while in others it is not.
I have the feeling that sometimes, some messages are meant to make me feel scared and therefore a threat. Like, of course, the war that certain forms of mine are finally waging against me. It is a war of intimidation, as they believe that I will be intimidated by the danger of suffering their mud. Unfortunately for them, I do not feel vulnerable to any bullying or mudslinging.
How do you respond to those who say you don't accept criticism and react to what they tell you?
I've heard them call criticism up to the tenth muse. It is so useful. That doesn't mean it's bad to respond to criticism.
If she is trustworthy, you should answer so that the one who practices it realizes that you have taken it into account, adopting it or not. Otherwise you show contempt.
If, on the other hand, criticism is unreliable, then the answer is imperative in cases where, if you do not answer, you allow the distorters of the truth to deceive. Especially if you hold a public office whose prestige you have to preserve as the apple of your eye.
In general, however, yes, I am of the opinion that it is not right to think that one can criticize oneself but not listen to the opposite. In a democratic dialogue, everyone has the right to express their views, but this is not unequivocal. And the judges, they are judged, don't we say that?
When you took over as head of the Audit Office, with the first writing samples, the citizens supported you. A product of time and as the number of those affected increases but so does their power (political and other), do you feel that you enjoy the same support?
The support of the citizens is welcome and gives us the courage to continue, but it is not an end in itself.
I am not a politician and it cannot be a criterion for me whether something I will do and which I consider right, whether or not it will provoke the praise of the citizens. I note, however, that since the purpose of the Audit Office is to safeguard the public interest and, consequently, the interest of the citizens, the citizens will applaud the actions that lead in this direction.
Yes, I believe that citizens continue to support the Audit Office, seeing that it acts in the service of their own interests. There may be reactions, but these come mainly from those in control or from those in the wider circle of some auditors, who see the Audit Office as an obstacle to their own pursuits. This does not mean that there are no citizens who are well-intentioned to criticize something they disagree with.
Source: Liberal