8/18/2019 Report of Monitoring a Competition for Selection of District Electoral Commission Members

1/5

 

Report of monitoring a competition for selection of District Electoral Commission

members

One of the key issues that International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy focuses on

within the framework of the electoral reform is staffing of the electoral management body. To promote public trust towards the electoral management body, the process of staffing should be

impartial and transparent.

 Non-governmental organizations and political parties have been requesting revision of the EMB

staffing procedures for many years. We regret that no changes have been made in this regard.

The latest large-scale competition for selection of District Electoral Commission members hasdemonstrated yet again shortcomings in selection process and confirmed the need to revise

applicable procedures.

•  Shortcomings in the process of competition for selection of District Electoral

Commission members

In December 2015, the Central Election Administration (CEC) announced a competition for

selection of District Electoral Commission (DEC) members. By virtue of the Election Code of

Georgia, there are 13 members in a district electoral commission, including 5 selected by theCEC for the term of five years. Total number of these permanent DEC members is 380. The

competition was announced because of expiration of the five-year term for 193 members.

On January 4, 2014, the CEC amended the Regulations for Competition to Select DistrictElectoral Commission Members, allowing NGOs to monitor the process of selection. We

welcome the amendment because it promotes transparency of the competition.

 Nevertheless, we found significant shortcomings in the competition process. Although by virtue

of the Regulations, it is the aim of the competition to determine the degree of compatibility of a

candidate’s professional skillset, qualifications and capacities with requirements for a particular position, under Article 8 of the Regulations, interviews are not mandatory for the selection

 process and the CEC decides about compatibility of each candidate’s qualifications with the

requirements without meeting the candidate first. In addition, the CEC is authorized to request an

interview with a candidate.

In the case in question, the CEC did not request interviews with any of the candidates, on

grounds that there were too many candidates (total of 771) and too short a time. In light of this, if

the CEC considered that all candidates who were shortlisted for voting met applicable legal

1

8/18/2019 Report of Monitoring a Competition for Selection of District Electoral Commission Members

2/5

requirements, it is unclear how exactly the CEC members decided who to vote for and which

candidate to prefer based on application only, without interviews or selection criteria.

Although the CEC voted during an open meeting and NGOs present at the meeting were able to

freely monitor the process, the reasons why the CEC members chose to vote for particularcandidates were not clear. It begs the question of how exactly were the CEC members able to

evaluate professional skills, qualifications and capacities of candidates based on application

materials only. The most important part of the process – substantiation and fairness of decisions

made about each individual candidate took place behind closed doors. Competition that followedsuch rules gives rise to suspicions about validity and fairness of decisions. We believe that in

absence of interviews and criteria for selection of candidates, it was impossible to evaluatecandidates comprehensively, and make substantiated decisions.

•  Non-partisan members with partisan past

Study of work experience of electoral commission members appointed by the CEC has revealed

that a significant part of “non-partisan” independent members of district electoral commissions

had a party-related election experience. This has called impartiality of the CEC’s decisions inquestion and has caused intense discussions. It has been found that some of the selected members

were proxies of different political parties in electoral commissions in the past. According to theverified data from the parliamentary elections in 2012, the presidential elections in 2013, local

self-government elections in 2014 and the by-elections in 2015, out of 182 1 selected commission

members 672 turned out to have a partisan past (the data has been pulled from the most recent

and the most important elections).

 Notably, most of the sixty-seven members were appointed as proxies of different parties duringdifferent elections. In addition, in most of the cases, they were appointed by parties who arenow members of the coalition Georgian Dream; in particular, 22 members were appointed as

 proxies for the political union Industry Will Save Georgia, 17  by the Georgian ConservativeParty, 10 by the Georgian Republican Party, 9 by the Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia, 9 

 by the National Forum, 5 by the Free Democrats, 3 by the European Democrats and Christian-

Democratic Movement each, and 1 by the United Democratic Movement, the United National

Movement and the Christian-Democratic People’s Party each.

As to the intensity of their work as commission members, among 67 members 30 were appointedas party proxies during two elections – e.g. during 2013 and 2014 elections or during 2014 and

2015 elections; 9  were appointed as party proxies during three elections and 1  during four

elections. 27  members were nominated by parties for commission membership during one

election only, including 13 in 2012, 6 in 2014, 6 in 2013 and 2 in 2015.

• 

Conclusions and Recommendations

1 See the list of selected members at: http://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-

gancxadeba-saolqo-saarchevno-komisiebis-dakompleqtebis-shesaxeb0402.page 2 We verified the information through the list of electoral commission members published on the CEC website. We

do not exclude the possibility that number of such individuals is higher. For detailed information, including

commission member’s name, surname, political party and year of the elections see the enclosed file.

2

http://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-gancxadeba-saolqo-saarchevno-komisiebis-dakompleqtebis-shesaxeb0402.pagehttp://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-gancxadeba-saolqo-saarchevno-komisiebis-dakompleqtebis-shesaxeb0402.pagehttp://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-gancxadeba-saolqo-saarchevno-komisiebis-dakompleqtebis-shesaxeb0402.pagehttp://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-gancxadeba-saolqo-saarchevno-komisiebis-dakompleqtebis-shesaxeb0402.pagehttp://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-gancxadeba-saolqo-saarchevno-komisiebis-dakompleqtebis-shesaxeb0402.pagehttp://www.cesko.ge/ge/mediisatvis-4-ge/pres-relizebi-13-ge/ceskos-gancxadeba-saolqo-saarchevno-komisiebis-dakompleqtebis-shesaxeb0402.page

8/18/2019 Report of Monitoring a Competition for Selection of District Electoral Commission Members

3/5

Based on the Election Code, a district electoral commission member selected by the CEC should

not be affiliated with a party. It is not known whether those 67 selected individuals are members

of a party. However, selection of individuals, who served as party proxies in past elections,

as members of district election commissions calls impartiality and political neutrality ofCEC decisions into question, as illustrated by developments following the competition. This

has a negative impact on public trust towards the electoral management body as a whole, whichis especially important in light of the upcoming elections. Therefore, CEC members should have

selected candidates by taking into account their work history in election administration and their

affiliation with concrete parties, which would have prevented suspicions about politically

motivated decisions. In addition, the CEC members had means to verify if a candidate served as

a party proxy in any of the electoral commissions during past elections.

We believe that reforming the EMB staffing procedure is necessary. ISFED, Georgian Young

Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) and Transparency International – Georgia have put forward

recommendations that propose selection of EMB members by profession. 3   Therecommendations also propose reducing the number of electoral commission members and

introducing the two-level certification system. According to the recommendations, in order to

ensure political neutrality it should be prohibited to select individuals who have served asmembers or as candidates of a political party over the recent years as electoral commission

members.

In light of the complexity of the reform, we believe that it can be implemented gradually, stage

 by stage, while the reform process should commence as soon as possible. In addition, prior to

full implementation of reform, regulations for selection of electoral commission members should be revised in light of the anticipated need to select DEC members following expiration of term of

office of some of the current members of the commissions. To improve transparency, fairness

and substantiation of decisions and promote public trust towards the electoral management body,

we believe that:

•  interviews should be a mandatory part of selection process;

•   best candidates should be shortlisted for interviews, for instance, through testing, as oneof the stages of the elections process;

•  during interviews candidates should be evaluated based on a pre-determined criteria andscores, to make the evaluation process more transparent and ensure that decisions are

objective and substantiated;

•  We recommend that party affiliation of candidates who were shortlisted for interviews be

checked by requesting information from political parties. Because the verification processrequires considerable amount of effort and finances, verification of shortlisted candidates

only will reduce the number of candidates to be verified. In addition, to simplify the process it can be required that the information for verification be requested from political

 parties that participated in the most recent two or three elections. Finding that an

individual is a member of a political party after he or she was appointed to the office,

3 For complete recommendations, please visit http://www.isfed.ge/main/1007/geo/ 

3

http://www.isfed.ge/main/1007/geo/http://www.isfed.ge/main/1007/geo/http://www.isfed.ge/main/1007/geo/http://www.isfed.ge/main/1007/geo/

8/18/2019 Report of Monitoring a Competition for Selection of District Electoral Commission Members

4/5

may serve as grounds for terminating his/her powers and instituting administrative

 proceedings;

•  Individuals who served as party proxies in the most recent (two or three) elections,

should not be appointed as electoral commission members by profession.

# District Selected member’s name,surname

Nominating party Year

#2 Vake Lika Avalishvili Industry Will Save Georgia 2013, 201

2 #2 Vake Natia Abelashvili Free Democrats 2013

3 #2 Vake Tamar Tsertsvadze United National Movement 2013, 2014 #3 Saburtalo Nino Bazadze European Democrats 2012

5 #4 Krtsanisi Maia Sultanishvili National Forum 2013, 201

6 #6 Samgori Nato Avazashvili Conservative Party 2013, 201

7 #6 Samgori Natia Abashvili Conservative Party 2012

8 #7 Chughureti Tinatin Kalmakhelidze Conservative Party 2013, 201

9 #7 Chughureti Naziko Shevardnadze Industry Will Save Georgia 2013, 201

0 #7 Chughureti Paata Enukidze Christian Democratic Movement 2012

1 #8 Didube Tamar Chkuaseli Industry Will Save Georgia 2013, 201

2 #10 Gldani Rusudan Tabarukishvili Industry Will Save Georgia 2012

3 #11 Sagarejo Nato Lomidze Republican Party 2013, 201

4 #13 Sighnaghi Manana Mchedlishvili Republican Party 2013, 201

5 #13 Sighnaghi Leila Tukhashvili Conservative Party 2013, 201

6 #14 Dedoplistskaro Davit Nasrashvili Industry Will Save Georgia 2013, 201

7 #14 Dedoplistskaro Givi Natroshvili Republican Party 2013, 201

8 #17 Telavi Tamar Grdzelishvili Industry Will Save Georgia 2013, 201

9 #17 Telavi Tatia Komakhidze Free Democrats 2013

20 #17 Telavi Leila Kveliashvili Christian Democratic Movement 2012

21 #19 Tianeti Maia Kutsnashvili National ForumConservative Party

2013

2014

22 #21 Gardabani Tamazi Poladashvili Conservative Party 2013

23 #25 Tsalka Khatia Paraskoevi Industry Will Save Georgia 2013, 201

24 #32 Gori Tamar Tramakidze Christian Democratic Movement 2012

25 #33 Kareli Nikoloz Ketiladze Georgian Dream 201426 #33 Kareli Lili Oniashvili Free Democrats 2013, 201

27 #35 Khashuri Lela Barbakadze Republican Party 2013, 201

28 #35 Khashuri Nona Khachidze Conservative PartyGeorgian Dream

2012

2013, 201

29 #36 Borjomi Makvala Gvirjishvili Conservative Party 2012

30 #38 Adigeni Lela Adoshvili Georgian Dream 2013, 201

31 #39 Aspindza Lela Tamaradze Conservative Party 2013, 201

32 #45 Tsageri Mamuka Saghinadze Industry Will Save Georgia 2012

4

8/18/2019 Report of Monitoring a Competition for Selection of District Electoral Commission Members

5/5

Georgian Dream

Republican Party

2013

2014

33 #46 Lentekhi Khatuna Tvildiani Conservative PartyFree Democrats

2012

2013, 201

34 #48 Kharagauli Neli Vepkhvadze Industry Will Save Georgia 2012

35 #49 Terjola Iza Magrakvelidze Christian Democratic People’s Party 2012

36 #49 Terjola Elza Bardavelidze Industry Will Save GeorgiaConservative Party

20122013, 201

37 #50 Sachkhere Irma Samkharadze Conservative Party 2012, 2013, 2

38 #51 Zestaponi Lia Bibilashvili Industry Will Save Georgia 2013, 201

39 #51 Zestaponi Giorgi Kakhniashvili Industry Will Save Georgia 2012

40 #52 Baghdati Eleonora Lomsianidze Georgian Dream 2013, 201

41 #52 Baghdati Koba Jikhvadze European DemocratsRepublican Party

2012

2013

42 #53 Vani Gulnara Rokhvadze Georgian Dream 2015

43 #54 Samtredia Nino Vashakidze Conservative PartyIndustry Will Save Georgia

2012

2013, 201

44 #55 Khoni Sophio Karkashadze National Forum 2014

45 #55 Khoni Lali Kashia Conservative Party 201246 #58 Tskaltubo Lola Pantskhava Industry Will Save Georgia 2014

47 #58 Tskaltubo Kristine Kajaia Republican Party 2013, 201

48 #59 Kutaisi Nana Imnadze Conservative Party 2013, 201

49 #59 Kutaisi Iza Peradze National Forum 2013, 201

50 #59 Kutaisi Larina Laliashvili Industry Will Save Georgia 2012

51 #60 Ozurgeti Teimuraz Kacharava Georgian Dream 2014

52 #60 Ozurgeti Elguja Chkhartishvili Industry Will Save Georgia National Forum

2012

2013, 201

53 #61 Lanchkhuti Lali Kikabidze Industry Will Save Georgia 2014

54 #64 Senaki Aleksandre Kachibaia National ForumIndustry Will Save Georgia

2013, 201

2015

55 #65 Martvili Maia Gagua United Democratic Movement 201556 #66 Khobi Shortena Tskiria Industry Will Save Georgia

Conservative Party

2012

2013, 2014, 2

57 #66 Khobi Manana Tatarashvili European Democrats 2012

58 #66 Khobi Jemali Sherozia Republican Party 2013, 201

59 #66 Khobi Datuna Jobava Georgian DreamIndustry Will Save Georgia

2014

2015

60 #67 Zugdidi Khatuna Davianti Free Democrats 2013

61 #67 Zugdidi Nana Shengelaia National Forum 2013

62 #67 Zugdidi Lela Lashkhia Republican PartyIndustry Will Save Georgia

2013

2015

63 #69 Chkhorotsku Nato Gabedava National Forum 2013

64 #69 Chkhorotsku Tamaz Khorava Republican Party 2012, 2013, 2

65 #80 Keda Irina Beridze Industry Will Save Georgia National Forum

2013

2014

66 #80 Keda Temur Beridze Georgian Dream 2013, 201

67 #84 Khulo Tamar Kamadadze Conservative Party 2014

5