Reforming Integrity Checks and Code of Ethics in Bulgaria

3. Enhancing the impact of the Code of Ethics

Abstract

This chapter provides recommendations on how the CACIAF could improve the Code of Ethics and its implementation. It discusses the role and impact of assigning an ethics advisor, as well as the introduction of integrity trainings to raise awareness and develop relevant skills. There is a need to update the organisational integrity framework within the Code of Ethics. In particular, the CACIAF could strengthen the rules to better protect internal whistleblowers, adopt a detailed gift policy, and introduce regulation on lobbying at organisatinal level to contribute to its responsiveness to integrity concerns within the CACIAF and further enforce citizens’ trust in the organisation.

3.1. The Code of Ethics of the CACIAF

The CACIAF adopted its Code of Ethics in 2018. A working group of employees (set up by an order of the Chairman of the CACIAF) developed the document. The CACIAF’s Legal and Information Services Directorate (ALIS) is responsible for the implementation of the ethical measures. The Code of Ethics is published on the internal portal for employees as well as the official website of the CACIAF.

On the national level the Code of Conduct for Public Administration Employees covers the ethical aspects of professional conduct of all public servants in Bulgaria. The CACIAF’s Code of Ethics is aligned with the national regulation and elaborates its provisions considering its own mission and operation.

3.2. Strengthening the role and impact of the Code of Ethics

3.2.1. The CACIAF could assign an integrity advisor to promote open organisational culture and the implementation of the Code of Ethics

Considering that there are many different units with different responsibilities on organisational integrity, each stakeholder should have a common understanding of the Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics and its related ordinances assign competences and responsibilities to various units of the CACIAF. Among others, the Human Resource Department, the Inspectorate, the Anti-Corruption Directorate (due to its specific standing and regulations), as well as the Public Relations Department all have roles in the implementation of its provisions. Currently, there is no central unit or designated personnel to co-ordinate the organisational integrity policy, register the related questions, requests or reports, advise officials and draw lessons for further development.

According to the information received during the fact-finding interviews officials can turn to their appointing authority, the Chair of the Commission if they cannot or do not want to seek ethical counselling from their managers. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this solution. The leadership of the organisation has the highest authority to intervene and provide the necessary information, but in most cases, it does not have the capacity to reflect on all questions that arise in everyday practice, especially on short notice. In practice most dilemmas might be addressed, without the direct involvement of the highest level of the organisational hierarchy, if the officials can access adequate guidance quickly and easily.

Although integrity is ultimately the responsibility of all officials working at the CACIAF, a dedicated integrity unit or personnel could support shaping integrity and enhance the effective implementation of the Code of Ethics. A visible place for integrity management in the organisational structure increases the scope of coordination between integrity management instruments and, therefore, allows synergies between instruments. The explicit designation of this coordination function to a person, group or organisational unit will significantly increase the possibility of promoting an open culture of organisational integrity by producing said coordination (Box ‎3.1).

Box ‎3.1. Open culture of organisational integrity

Following the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity, an open culture of organisational integrity:

• invests in integrity leadership to demonstrate a public sector organisation’s commitment to integrity;

• promotes a merit-based, professional, public sector dedicated to public-service values and good governance;

• provides sufficient information, training, guidance and timely advice for public officials to apply public integrity standards in the workplace;

• supports an open organisational culture within the public sector responsive to integrity concerns and where ethical dilemmas, public integrity concerns, and errors can be discussed freely;

• applies an internal control and risk management framework to safeguard integrity.

Source: (OECD, 2021[19])

A clear location of integrity management in the organisational structure also allows a true accumulation of expertise and provides its own identity. Therefore, the competencies and responsibilities should be separated from any functions related to auditing or enforcement to clarify institutional responsibilities and to allow a clear focus on prevention and the promotion of open cultures of integrity. In order to succeed and gain credibility, the commitment of both the leadership and the senior management, needs to be reflected in dedicating sufficient human and financial resources to effectively implement the CACIAF’s integrity framework beyond a check-the-box approach (Box ‎3.2).

Box ‎3.2. Integrity advisors in the OECD countries

Poland

An example of designating dedicated integrity units, officers or advisors within public bodies can be found in Poland, where integrity advisors may be appointed in ministries and other government administration offices. Their role is to provide advice on solving ethical dilemmas and to support public officials in understanding the rules and ethical principles of the civil service. In addition, integrity advisors support leadership in disseminating knowledge about principles and promoting a culture of integrity in the office.

France

In France, the Law on Ethics and the Rights and Obligations of Civil Servants, adopted in April 2016, and its application Decree published in April 2017, created the right for every public official to have access to integrity advice, and provided for the appointment of designated ethics officers (référent déontologue) in every public organisation. The ethics officers have the mission to advise civil servants on questions they may have regarding their integrity obligations in the course of their duties.

Source: (OECD, 2020[11])

The key tasks of an integrity advisor are providing advice on content upon request; providing integrity advice about what is acceptable in specific circumstances; and preparing guidance on what the organisation’s guidelines should be on key integrity issues. Setting out easily accessible channels and clear procedures for contacting the advisor unit or personnel can help facilitate access, especially since the employees of the CACIAF are stationed in various geographical areas of Bulgaria. In Australia, the Ethics Advisory Service within the Australian Public Service Commission is made available to all public service employees. The website clearly indicates how employees can access the service, with options including e-mail and phone, and sets service delivery standards and privacy standards. The website also details what employees can and cannot expect in terms of advice from the Ethics Advisory Service (Australian Public Service Commission, 2021[20]).

Specific attention should be given to respecting confidentiality of the exchanges and the effectiveness of their resolution. The integrity advisor should report directly to the highest authority within the CACIAF, which exercises a technical supervision of its activities. Furthermore, as in France, to enhance the effectiveness of the integrity advisors’ work, it would be useful to guarantee its access to all relevant information regarding the public sector entity’s activities (and consequently, their associated risks) and its capacity to have a real influence on the other departments (OECD, 2021[19]).

The assigned integrity advisors could implement communication strategies to ensure that all employees of the CACIAF are adequately informed of the integrity policies in place. They could design tailor-made training sessions or awareness-raising actions in the specific context of the directorates of the CACIAF. To assist the comprehensive implementation of the organisational integrity framework integrity advisor may lay out an annual plan. In Mexico, ethics committees, established to strengthen the culture of governmental integrity within public bodies, prepare and present an Annual Work Program during the first quarter of each year and submit an Annual Report of Activities about the accomplishments of the previous year each January. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the integrity advisor could also supervise and monitor the implementation of the integrity check procedures.

To sum up, as a dedicated unit or personnel, such as an integrity advisor would be able to address several challenges and current weaknesses and significantly enhance the CACIAF’s capacities to deliver its mandate and functions. The anchoring of the integrity management system in the organisation also guarantees the continuity of integrity policies. In practice, it is common that, even when integrity management draws attention and enthusiasm when launched for the first time, this tends to decrease after some time. Holding a person or entity accountable for long-term integrity management and asking them to report on their progress will significantly reduce this risk.

3.2.2. The CACIAF could introduce trainings to raise awareness and develop skills for public integrity

Article 55(2) of the Code of Ethics stipulates that each employee of the CACIAF has to certify its familiarity with the Code by completing and signing a standard declaration. While this formal requirement aims to raise awareness on the organisational integrity measures, there is no further specific training provided on the Code of Ethics for newly recruited officials. With regard to the training of the staff, the Code underlines the responsibility of the managers who are expected to ensure the necessary conditions for further training or retraining of their employees (Art. 31).

As outlined beforehand, the trainings for professional and official development of the staff of the CACIAF are conducted by the Institute of Public Administration upon law. The CACIAF’s Human Resources Department summarises the requests from the units for trainings and submits them to the IPA. It also monitors the training deadlines and prepares orders for employees to participate in trainings. The CACIAF does not organise or conduct trainings.

While in 2018, the year of the CACIAF’s establishment, 28 trainings (a total of 79 trained employees) were organised on integrity, in 2019 and 2020 only one respectively (with the participation of 16 employees), while in 2021 altogether three with the involvement of altogether 291 employees. Training on ethics specifically was provided in 2018 and 2021.

The EPAC’s Anti-Corruption Authority Standards underline that for an authority it is imperative to attract highly qualified individuals exhibiting the necessary skills, experience and behavior. Staff members require high levels of personal integrity and resilience as well as the ability to maintain trust and confidence (European Partners Against Corruption, 2011[21]). The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity calls on adherents to “provide sufficient information, training, guidance and timely advice for public officials to apply public integrity standards in the workplace, in particular through:

• Providing public officials throughout their careers with clear and up-to-date information about the organisation’s policies, rules and administrative procedures relevant to maintaining high standards of public integrity.

• Offering induction and on-the-job integrity training to public officials throughout their careers in order to raise awareness and develop essential skills for the analysis of ethical dilemmas, and to make public integrity standards applicable and meaningful in their own personal contexts.

• Providing easily accessible formal and informal guidance and consultation mechanisms to help public officials apply public integrity standards in their daily work as well as to manage conflict-of-interest situations” (OECD, 2017[1]).

• Building knowledge and skills on ethics and anti-corruption is an essential element of a strategic approach for public integrity. To be effective, the timing, content and delivery methods, and target audiences need to be considered. Integrity training should also be interesting and engaging, with different methods used to reach learners (Table ‎3.1).

Table ‎3.1. Main training methods for integrity

Method	Approach	Description
Lecture	Rules-based	Public officials are offered lecture-format courses on integrity standards, rules and administrative procedures to reinforce their understanding of ethical concepts and principles of public service. Trainers are mainly the ones intervening.
E-learning module / online course or massive open online course	Rules-based	Public officials are offered online courses or modules through an online platform or website on ethical standards, rules and administrative procedures to reinforce their understanding of ethical concepts and principles of public service. Trainers are mainly the ones intervening.
Coaching and mentoring	Combined	Through peer feedback and discussions, junior public officials are given the opportunity to partner with a senior manager with proven ethical conduct, motivating ethical behaviour and helping to develop ethical awareness to foresee and resolve dilemmas.
Ethical dilemma case studies and discussions	Combined	Based on a described situation or scenario or on non-didactic support such as a video, public officials are encouraged to identify integrity and ethical issues and discuss how to address and avoid them. The trainer acts as a facilitator with the trainees, sharing views and discussing the dilemmas.
Simulation game, role-playing and scenario	Values-based	Public officials are given a scenario, an issue to deal with or a specific function and they are asked to perform it as if they were in a real case situation. The trainer acts as a facilitator only and trainees do most of the work, acting in an inductive way.

Source: (OECD, 2020[11])

For many OECD countries, newly recruited public officials are a key audience for integrity education, therefore, for instance, Canada, the United States, Lithuania and the Republic of Türkiye have made such trainings mandatory (OECD, 2020[11]). Induction trainings serve as the first opportunity to set the tone for integrity standards upon entry into the public service. Basic core components of these induction integrity courses include the concepts of values and ethics, but also managing and preventing conflict of interest, ethical dilemmas and accountability issues in the workplace (Box ‎3.3).

Box ‎3.3. Integrity training of public officials

Chile

The Civil Service of Chile (Servicio Civil de Chile) annually designs and implements a Programme of Support and Development for Senior Public Management (Programa de Acompañamiento y Desarrollo para la Alta Dirección Pública), which incorporates induction, training and support activities.

In the induction stage, a conference is held with recently appointed senior public managers. Several institutions participate in this conference, including the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) covering the topic of integrity and public ethics for senior management.

Within training activities, a cycle of webinars is held annually. Webinars include the topic of integrity and public ethics, addressed by different actors related to the topic and experts of the field.

Austria

In addition to the written learning material “Code of Conduct, Federal Ministry of the Interior” and the shorter version “Code of Conduct to go“, the Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption (BAK) offers an e-learning module, including learning content about the rule of law, acceptance of gifts, official secrets, general obligations of conduct, social media, bias, secondary employment, as well as about „Correct handling of mistakes“ and „Our principles for dealing with each other“.

This e-learning course is a component of the Federal Ministry of the Interior’s training passport, takes about 20 minutes and is intended to ensure training in this field for the entire staff of the ministry. A mix of theory and case examples enables users to quickly refresh their knowledge of the code of conduct.

Source: Information provided by the Government of Chile; Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption of Austria (2019) Annual Report 2018, https://www.bak.gv.at/en/Downloads/files/Annual_Reports/Jahresbericht_2018_Englisch_WEB.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2022)

The CACIAF could consider increasing the participation at integrity trainings provided by the IPA, especially for newly recruited officials. Furthermore, it could also develop regular trainings for its employees tailored to their responsibilities and experiences gained throughout their careers. For newly appointed managers and public officials who operate in positions exposed to higher risks of corruption, training programmes could be accommodated to their specific needs.

Making sufficient information available for officials is also key to raising awareness and understanding of integrity policies, standards, rules and administrative procedures. For instance, materials that provide ethical guidance, case descriptions and examples of what circumstances and relationships can lead to conflict of interest could be helpful to comply with integrity standards. In Colombia, the Administrative Department of the Public Service (Departamento Administrativo de la Función Pública, DAFP) has created a dedicated section on its website covering conflicts of interest. It provides information, guides, concepts, and tools to understand what conflicts of interest are, why they should be identified and declared, as well as the importance of preventive conflict management.

3.2.3. The CACIAF could facilitate regular exchange on experiences and open up the revision process of the Code of Ethics for all employees and relevant stakeholders

The CACIAF’s Code of Ethics reiterates that the code is “an open document subject to continuous development and enrichment” (Art. 56(1)). As it has been signalled during the fact-finding interviews, providing more feedback and information about the implementation of the Code of Ethics, and facilitating more frequent exchange on experiences could make it a living document and a more effective tool to help employees navigate ethical decisions they may face.

The CACIAF has also shared that the Code of Ethics is subject to regular updates in order to comply with the provisions of the National Code of Conduct. To reinforce the openness of the Code the CACIAF could invite all its employees to the next round of revision and drafting process. A broad consultation could help to involve all officials and relevant stakeholders in the process; understand their experiences, dilemmas and constraints, potential misunderstandings and demands; and ensure higher acceptability and implementation of the rules (Box ‎3.4).

Box ‎3.4. Revising ethics codes in the OECD member countries

Revision of the Australian Public Service (APS) values

In the past, the Australian Public Service Commission used a statement of values expressed as a list of 15 rules. In 2010, the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration released its report “Ahead of the Game”, which recognised the relevance of a robust values framework and a values-based leadership in driving performance. The report recommended that the APS values could be revised, tightened, and made more memorable. The values were updated to follow the acronym “I CARE”: Impartial; Committed to service; Accountable; Respectful; Ethical.

The Colombian Integrity Code

In 2016, the Colombian Administrative Department of Public Administration initiated a process to define a General Integrity Code. Through a participatory exercise involving more than 25 000 public servants through different mechanisms, five core values were selected: Honesty; Respect; Commitment; Diligence; Justice. In addition, each public entity has the possibility to integrate up to two additional values or principles to respond to organisational, regional and/or sectorial specificities.

Consultation on the Code of Ethics of the Garda Síochána in Ireland

In 2016 the Policing Authority carried out two rounds of consultations as part of the preparation of the Code of Ethics for the Garda Síochána, the national police service of the Republic of Ireland. In the first round of consultations the Authority invited initial views. Ideas and comments were received from a wide range of contributors, including those who work in the Garda Síochána, members of the public, and statutory and civil society organisations. The Authority considered all submissions received, and then conducted further research to develop a draft Code of Ethics, which was published on the Authority website for further public consultation.

In conjunction with the second round of the consultation, a consultation event was held to discuss and gather feedback in relation to the draft. 90 people participated in the event including members of the public, Joint Policing Committee representatives, civil society groups, state agencies, representative associations and Garda members including Garda management. The Code of Ethics was published in 2017.

Source: Australian Public Service Commission, https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/aps-employees-and-managers/aps-values; Administrative Department of the Public Service / Departamento Administrativo de la Función Pública (DAFP), Colombia, https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/web/eva/codigo-integridad; Policing Authority of Ireland (2017) Code of Ethics Consultation. https://www.policingauthority.ie/en/about-us/consultations-detail/code-of-ethics-consultation (accessed on 22 June 2022)

3.3. Updating the organisational integrity framework of the CACIAF

3.3.1. The CACIAF could strengthen its rules to better protect internal whistleblowers and consider appointing the integrity advisor as an organisational contact point

The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity calls on adherents to support an open organisational culture within the public sector response to integrity concerns, in particular by providing alternative channels for reporting suspected violations of integrity standards, including where appropriate the possibility of confidentially reporting to a body with the mandate and capacity to conduct an independent investigation (OECD, 2017[1]).

The legal framework in Bulgaria provides for the possibility of whistleblowing reports in various laws and standards, including the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Administrative Procedure Code, the Anti-Corruption Law, and the National Code of Conduct for State Employees. The Anti-Corruption Law provides that any person having data concerning corruption, or conflict of interest about a person holding senior public position, may submit a report to the CACIAF. The CACIAF applies special rules for the receipt and consideration of reports for corruption or conflict of interest and for protection of whistle-blowers (CACIAF, 2021[22]). A template, an electronic report form and internal rules for handling reports and protecting whistle-blowers are published on its website. Nevertheless, the detailed regulation and tools are designed for and apply to reports received from external sources outside the body of the CACIAF and the investigation thereof.

Beyond the relevant legal framework (Box ‎3.5) the National Code of Conduct for State Employees and the CACIAF’s Code of Ethics cover whistleblowing within the CACIAF. The CACIAF’s Code of Ethics stipulates that if an employee considers an order unlawful, they are required to report their views in writing to the superior manager (CACIAF’s Code of Ethics, Art. 7(4)). The National Code of Conduct covers a wider scope of potential violations, and requires reporting about any administrative weaknesses, omissions and misconduct which, in the officials’ opinion, give rise to corruption, fraud and irregularities (Art. 7). Staff members may not be penalised for having reported a breach of professional ethics, unless such an act proves to be vexatious or unfounded (National Code of Conduct, Art. 22 and the CACIAF’s Code of Ethics, Art. 21).

While the CACIAF’s Code of Ethics (applied together with the National Code of Conduct) lays down some of the foundations of an internal whistleblowing system, the organisational regulation is fragmented, and gaps exist as to confidentiality and protection measures. According to the CACIAF, no staff have made internal reported on breaches of law or integrity within the CACIAF since the organisation was established in 2018 suggesting this tool may be underutilised.

Box ‎3.5. The legal framework for whistleblowing in Bulgaria

Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria

The Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria (Art. 45) stipulates that “citizens have the right to lodge complaints, submit proposals and petition State institutions".

Administrative Procedure Code

The Administrative Procedure Code specifies that the breaches and misconduct may only be reported to the competent administrative body, e.g., the body that is directly responsible for the management and supervision of the authorities and officials whose unlawful or inappropriate actions or omissions have been reported. The Administrative Procedure Code also regulates that reports may be submitted to administrative bodies, as well as to other bodies performing public law functions for abuses of power and corruption, mismanagement of state or municipal property or other illegal or inappropriate acts or omissions of administrative bodies and officials in the respective administrations affecting state or public interests, rights or legal interests of others. In practice, citizens can report irregularities and misconduct to any public institution, including regulatory and other bodies with control functions, local government bodies, the ombudsman, and specialist agencies such as the State Agency for National Security and the Anti-Corruption Commission, the inspection services of various ministries and the Council of Ministers, etc. Furthermore, under the Administrative Procedure Code, it is stipulated that no proceedings shall be instituted on the basis of anonymous proposals or reports and that no one may be prosecuted solely for submitting a proposal or report. The identity of the whistle-blower should be kept confidential if they are reporting on conflicts of interest cases.

Anti-Corruption Law

According to the Anti-Corruption Law any person having data concerning corruption, or conflict of interests about a person holding senior public position, may submit a report to the CACIAF. In specific cases, a report may be considered a publication to the mass media, if it meets requirements under Art. 48 of the Law. In case a report is not under the CACIAF’s competence, it is re-sent immediately to the relevant bodies. However, anonymous reports are not examined and/or resent on competence. In detail, they should contain information such as full name, Unified Civil Number, address, telephone number, e-mail address of the sender; the name of the person, against whom the report is sent and the senior public position held by him; concrete data about the stated violation; reference to documents providing additional information; date of submission of the report; and signature of the person submitting the report. Reports against a judge, prosecutor, or investigator, containing data about acts which harm the prestige of the judiciary are to be send for check to the Inspectorate under the Supreme Judicial Council. Also, Article 51 of the Law stipulates that a person who has been dismissed, persecuted or in respect of whom action has been taken leading to mental or physical harassment for submitting a report shall be entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by him in court.

National Code of Conduct for State Employees

The National Code of Conduct for State Employees (Art.22) ensures that Civil servants cannot be sanctioned for having reported a case of breach of this Code. Additionally, there is an obligation from the members and staff of the CACIAF to protect the anonymity of the persons who have submitted reports of corruption or conflict of interest, nor disclose related facts and data (Anti-Corruption Law, Art. 49).

Source: (OECD, 2022[18])

In line with the EU Directive on Whistleblowing (which all EU Member States including Bulgaria have to transpose in their legal system (Box ‎3.6)) and the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity (OECD, 2017[1]), the following features are essential components of effective whistle-blower protection policies:

• clear reporting channels;

• prohibition of formal and informal work-related sanctions;

• clear types of protection guaranteed;

• effective reviews and investigation of complaints;

• awareness-raising measures.

Clearly defining channels of disclosure could help to facilitate reporting, as otherwise whistle-blowers may lack confidence in the system or may not be comfortable coming forward. Offering access to both internal and external channels create an enabling environment for reporting (OECD, 2020[11]).

Box ‎3.6. The EU Directive on whistleblowing

The EU Directive on whistleblowing sets the common minimum standards for the protection of whistle-blowers. The Directive expands the definition of whistle-blower to include not just employees, but individuals who report wrongdoing encountered in a work-related context.

The Directive establishes the obligations to create internal and external reporting channels, to follow up on reports and keep the whistle-blower informed, as well as it allows the public disclosure of the wrongdoing in the event of not receiving a response from the reporting channels.

It prohibits retaliation against whistle-blowers and individuals who assist whistle-blowers, protecting their identities in most circumstances, with clear and limited exceptions to confidentiality and an advance notice to the whistle-blower when his or her identity needs to be disclosed. Member States can decide whether legal entities in the private or public sector and competent authorities are required to accept and follow up on anonymous reports. However, persons who reported or publicly disclosed information on breaches anonymously, but who are subsequently identified and suffer retaliation, shall nonetheless qualify for the protection.

A separate section is dedicated to protecting the reporting person against retaliation, including protection against dismissal and demotion by the employer. The Directive also includes applicable penalties for persons who hinder or attempt to hinder reporting, retaliate against the reporting person and breach the duty of maintaining the confidentiality of the whistle-blowers’ identity.

Source: (European Union, 2019[23])

In cases when the superior manager might be involved in the unlawful or unethical deeds, officials could turn to the designated integrity advisors for guidance and protection. For example, in the Netherlands, pursuant to the Whistle-blowers Authority Act (2016), reporting follows a tiered approach. At the organisation level, the rationale is that every organisation should have an opportunity to resolve abuses themselves first. Whistle-blowers must be provided one of three avenues to report alleged wrongdoings and misconduct: first, to their manager or higher superior; secondly, to a specific reporting centre established within the organisation; and thirdly, to a confidential counsellor. In French public organisations the ethics officers also act as a whistleblowing focal point (OECD, 2020[11]).

When a whistle-blower has experienced reprisal after disclosing misconduct, providing clarity on the organisational measures and remedies available can further reassure potential whistle-blowers to come forward. These can range from return to employment after unfair termination, job transfers or compensation, to damages if there was harm that cannot be remedied by injunctions, such as difficulty in or the impossibility of finding a new job (OECD, 2016[24]) (OECD, 2020[11]).

The comprehensive review and reform of the organisational whistleblowing system of the CACIAF would also reinforce Bulgaria’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan which lays out amendments to the national regulatory framework of whistleblowing to strengthen protection and support for whistle-blowers (Government of Bulgaria, 2022[25]). The Recovery and Resilience Plan lays particular emphasis on providing feedback and publicity of the investigations of report suspected violations. The adoption of measures that aim to increase the openness about the results of such investigations within the CACIAF could contribute to its responsiveness to integrity concerns within the organisation, as well as the further development of citizens’ trust in the organisation.

3.3.2. The CACIAF could adopt a detailed gift policy and provide related information from the beginning of employment

In line with the restrictions imposed by the National Code of Conduct (Box ‎3.7) the CACIAF’s Code of Ethics introduces a general ban for its employees on seeking or receiving gifts other than protocol ones. Neither can they ask for services, nor for other benefits which may affect the performance of their duties, decisions, impair the professional approach or can be regarded as a prize for their duties. All gifts are to be handed over to the CACIAF’s Public Relations Unit and advertised in a public register (Art. 4(2)).

Box ‎3.7. The regulation of accepting gifts and benefits in the Code of Conduct of State Employees of Bulgaria

• Employees shall not allow them to be economically or otherwise dependent and to seek and accept gifts, services, money, benefits or any other benefits which may affect the performance of their duties.

• Staff members may not accept any gifts or benefits for the performance of work entering their duties, nor may they engage in any activity beyond their competence.

• Staff members shall not accept any advantage or promise of advantage in order to influence the decision of other officials in the performance of their duties.

• Staff members shall not mediate obtaining an advantage from another person in order to carry out or not carry out any act in the service.

Source: (Government of Bulgaria, 2020[26])

While the Code of Ethics provides straightforward measures regarding gifts and asking for benefits, its wording does not regulate with similar clarity how the employees should proceed when they are offered gift-like hospitality invitations to entertainment, luncheons, sponsored events, or trips by third parties (Box ‎3.8).

Box ‎3.8. Typology of gifts of entertainment

The Gift and Entertainment Policy of the U.S. Department of Justice enlists several types of entertainment gifts, outlines possible concerns of ethics, and advises public officials on how to address the related problems.

Tickets to events

Before accepting any gift, an executive branch employee should consider whether acceptance of the gift would lead a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his or her integrity or impartiality, and should consider declining such a gift, even if it is otherwise permissible. The market value of a ticket entitling a ticket holder to food, refreshments, entertainment, or other benefit is deemed to be the face value of the ticket. Ethics issues may also arise when an employee is given the opportunity to purchase a ticket at face value and the street value of the ticket exceeds its face value, if: (1) the general public does not have a similar opportunity; and (2) the opportunity is provided by a prohibited source or because of the employee’s official position. In this circumstance, the gift is not only the ticket itself, but may also be the opportunity to buy the ticket at all and at face value.

Conferences and other events

When an employee is participating in his official capacity as a speaker or panel member at a conference or other event, he may accept an offer of free attendance, including a meal or refreshments, on the day of his presentation.

Widely attended gatherings

When it is determined that an employee's attendance at all or an appropriate part of an event is in the interest of the Department because it will further agency programmes and operations, an employee may accept an unsolicited gift of free attendance from the sponsor of the event if the event is found to be a widely attended gathering. A gathering is widely attended if a large number of people with mutual interests are expected to attend, and the event is open to members from throughout a given industry or profession. An event should also present an opportunity to exchange ideas and views among invited persons.

Social invitations from persons other than prohibited sources

An employee may accept unsolicited food, refreshments and entertainment, not including travel and lodging, for the employee and other guest, such as spouse, at a social event attended by several people where the invitation is from someone who is not a prohibited source, no fee is charged to anyone in attendance, and, if the sponsor of the event or person offering the invitation is not a person, the employee receives a written determination from the agency designee that his or her attendance will not cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question the employee’s integrity or impartiality.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice (2021) Gift and Entertainment Policy. https://www.justice.gov/jmd/gifts-and-entertainment (accessed on 22 June 2022)

To provide more detailed guidance for the officials the CACIAF could elaborate the rules on gift-like benefits and participation at events in the Code of Ethics (Box ‎3.9). Practical trainings could help the officials to identify undue influence, especially in cases when the distinction between bribes, hospitality and gifts gets blurred, for example, where the giver of the hospitality does not attend and act as host. Gift-like benefits could also be registered the same way gifts are registered.

Box ‎3.9. The Dutch Code of Conduct on Integrity has guidelines on accepting gifts and benefits

In relation to specific gifts, the Netherlands’ Code of Conduct on Integrity in the Central Public Administration notes that public officials may receive invitations (excursions, trips, dinners and invitations to events) from third parties and encourages government officials to discuss these invitations in advance with their manager. As an example, the Code cites “attending a sports event in the VIP lounge at the invitation of an external business relation” as a sensitive issue.

The Code of Conduct also recognises that it may be useful and desirable for civil servants to be invited for their expertise as a speaker or member of an expert panel, in commercially organised conferences and symposiums, for example, if the activity is important for developing, explaining or disseminating policies. However, the Code also includes principles for accepting requests for speaking at conferences. Public officials must discuss this in advance with their manager, who then determines whether the invitation can be accepted. The public official should not receive any financial compensation.

The final decision lies with management; here too, transparency and openness are necessary to make a detailed assessment.

Source: Netherlands Code of Conduct for Integrity in the Central Public Administration, https://www.government.nl/documents/decrees/2017/02/10/code-of-conduct-for-integrity-in-the-central-public-administration-2016. (accessed on 22 June 2022)

Employees of the CACIAF receive information on the rules related to receiving gifts when they travel on a mission. The CACIAF could also ensure detailed information on the relevant guidelines when the employee begins its career at the CACIAF as such dilemmas can occur at any stage and point of time of time.

3.3.3. The CACIAF could introduce regulation on lobbying at the entity-level to ensure transparency and build public trust in the Commission’s impartiality

Currently, Bulgaria does not have any comprehensive legal framework regulating lobbying activities nor any definition of lobbyist and lobbying activities. While the CACIAF’s Code of Ethics (in line with the provisions of the National Code of Conduct) lays down fundamental principles including impartiality, responsiveness, and equal treatment upon which the officials should interact with citizens (Chapter Three, Section I), it does not provide guidance on lobbying.

The OECD Recommendation on Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying underlines the need for an adequate degree of transparency to ensure that public officials, citizens, and businesses can obtain sufficient information on lobbying activities. Thus, lobbying should be “considered more broadly and inclusively to provide a level playing field for interest groups, whether business or not-for-profit entities, which aim to influence public decisions” (OECD, 2010[27]).

In several OECD countries transparency measures have been introduced at the organisational level to address the risks organisations face in interacting with specific interests (Box ‎3.10).

Box ‎3.10. Lobbying transparency measures at the organisational level

Spain’s National Markets and Competition Commission has set up its own Register of Lobbyists

In Spain, the National Markets and Competition Commission has adopted its own “Resolution to create the Register of Interest Groups”, considering that its relationship with special interests must be transparent, supported by control mechanisms, and allow citizens to know how far interest groups have influenced the commission’s decisions. Registration is on a voluntary basis and accompanied by rules of conduct for interest groups. The register is complemented by the publication of meetings that its directors and members of the commission’s Council have with interest groups.

Latvian public bodies’ internal and external disclosure of meetings with lobbyists

The Latvian Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development and several other agencies publish basic information on contacts with lobbyists online, based on an internal code of ethics, which includes a dedicated section on “rules of ethical conduct in communication with lobbyists”.

Employees of public administration bodies disclose their meetings with lobbyists to their superior. The employee shall inform the direct manager or the head of the institution regarding the expected meeting with the lobbyist, as well as disclose the information received from the lobbyist, including what interests they represent, what proposals were expressed, and in what way they have been considered.

Italy’s Anti-Corruption Authority publishes its meeting with external stakeholders

In Italy, the Anti-Corruption Authority publishes weekly agendas of meetings between key decision makers of the authority (the president, members of the authority’s Council, secretary-general and senior managers) with external stakeholders. Agendas are published online and contain information on the purpose of the meetings, the date and time, the names of persons present at the meeting, the topics of discussion, as well as any document transmitted. Agendas are published on the authority’s website under a “Transparent Administration” section.

The Australian Government Register of Lobbyists

The Australian Lobbying Code of Conduct promotes trust in the integrity of public bodies and ensures that contact between lobbyists and government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty. The Code requires that any person who acts on behalf of a third-party client for the purpose of lobbying Australian Government representatives must be registered on the publicly available Australian Government Register of Lobbyists and comply with the requirements of the Code. The Code defines lobbying activities as communications with a government representative in an effort to influence government decision making, including the making or amendment of legislation, the development or amendment of a government policy or program, the awarding of a government contract or grant or the allocation of funding. Under the Code, Australian Government representatives must only meet with third-party lobbyists who are registered and must report any breaches of the Code by a lobbyist to the Attorney-General’s Department.

Source: OECD 2020 Survey on Lobbying; Latvia: List of lobbyists (https://www.varam.gov.lv/sites/varam/files/content/files/etikas_kodekss_2020_final.pdf), Code of Ethics (https://www.varam.gov.lv/lv/par-lobetaju-sniedzamie-dati) and Cabinet Regulation No. 1 “Values of State Administration and Fundamental Principles of Ethics” (Chapter 3 “Open Communication with Lobbyists”, Article 7); Information provided by the Government Australia, https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/australian-government-register-lobbyists

Regulating lobbying at the national level has been included as one of the measures of the Recovery and Resilience Plan adopted by Bulgaria (Government of Bulgaria, 2022[25]). The development of a tailored lobbying policy at the organisational level could focus on the CACIAF’s specific role and responsibilities, further foster a culture of integrity and openness within its operation and provide clear guidance for the employees. The organisational regulation on lobbying could introduce a set of measures to ensure that lobbying is a useful tool for the CACIAF.

First, it could include clear definitions on a lobbyist and lobbying activities with regard to the tasks and competences of the CACIAF. The definitions should be tailored to the specific context of the organisation and sufficiently robust, comprehensive, and explicit to avoid misinterpretation and to prevent loopholes. This includes clarifying: (i) who is considered as a lobbyist; (ii) what type of activities are considered as lobbying; (iii) the types of decisions of the CACIAF that are targeted by lobbying; and (iv) the categories of public officials within the CACIAF that are targeted by lobbying. In particular, it is critical to ensure that the definition of lobbying activities is considered broadly and inclusively to provide a level playing field for interest groups, whether business or not-for-profit entities, which aim to influence public decision-making process of the CACIAF.

Second, the regulation should also enhance transparency in lobbying activities. A critical element for enhancing transparency in public decision making are mechanisms through which public officials, business and society can obtain sufficient information regarding who has had access and on what issues (OECD, 2010[27]). Such mechanisms should ensure that sufficient, pertinent information on key aspects of lobbying activities is disclosed in a timely manner, with the ultimate aim of enabling public scrutiny (OECD, 2010[27]). In particular, disclosed information could include which decisions, proposals, programmes or other decisions of the CACIAF were targeted by lobbyists.

Third, the regulation should ensure effective implementation, compliance and review. To that end, oversight mechanisms are an essential feature to ensure an effective lobbying regulation. Tools include providing a convenient online registration and report-filing system, raising awareness of the regulations, verifying disclosures on lobbying (including delays, accuracy and completeness of the information disclosed, unregistered activities), sending formal notices to lobbyists to advise of potential breaches, requesting modifications of the information declared and applying visible and proportional sanctions (OECD, 2021[28]).

In addition to enhancing the transparency of the policy-making process, the strength and effectiveness of the process also rests on the integrity of both public officials and those who try to influence them. To foster a culture of integrity in public organisations and decision making, the OECD Recommendation indicates that countries should provide standards to give public officials clear directions on how they are permitted to engage with lobbyists. Integrity standards and ethical obligations on lobbying can thus be included in the Code of Ethics. Similarly, to ensure integrity in the policy-making process, lobbyists (whether in-house or as part of a lobbying association) require clear standards and guidelines that clarify the expected rules and behaviour for engaging with public officials.

Ensuring integrity in lobbying also involves establishing standards for public officials leaving office to prevent conflict of interest when seeking a new position, inhibit the misuse of “confidential information” and avoid post-public service “switching sides” in specific processes in which former public officials were substantially involved. Time limits, or “cooling off” periods, are a useful tool to restrict post-public employment lobbying, “switching sides”, and use of insider information. The Anti-corruption Law stipulates that the employees of the CACIAF shall sign a declaration that they are not to disclose any information, become known to then during the fulfilment of their duties and after their discharge from office (Art.19(2)). Furthermore, senior public officials are not entitled to use any information received while performing their duties for a year after leaving their positions (unless another law provides otherwise). Acting as a consultant to third parties is only forbidden for the period of the appointment (Art. 60 and 61). When considering the length of cooling-off periods, core factors to take into account include whether the time lengths are fair, proportionate and reasonable considering the seriousness of the potential offence (OECD, 2014[29]). Thus, the CACIAF could consider adopting more tailored “cooling off” regulations that better reflect the scope of competences and responsibilities of its employees.

When developing the national regulation envisioned in the Recovery and Resilience Plan, the Bulgarian government and public sector could build on these provisions established by the CACIAF to develop a more robust and comprehensive lobbying regulation at the national level.