How is the planned layoff being executed in the Ministry of Interior of Serbia? How are the top ranking officials selected for their posts? Does the police reform make any sense if the political interests are still the main criterion for these appointments?

By Saša Djordjević (BCSP)
@Bambayay

For forty days Serbian public has been bombarded by the stories of dismissals and layoffs in police. The first casualties already appeared: someone lost their head and someone lost their career. Two police officers shot themselves in the head. The media reported different reasons for their actions. Some wrote that these incidents were related to the layoffs in police, others denied it. A third police officer went on a hunger strike. At the same time, the first Head of Police in Serbia was retired and then promoted to the post of Advisor to the Government. A new head of the Police Directorate in Niš was appointed as well.

The citizens of Serbia are getting used to the drama. As soon as the “coup d’état” affair was resolved, the tabloid media started running stories claiming that 1000 members of the Criminal Police Directorate will be fired and that a to-be-formed commission and police unions will be deciding on this matter. Further, it was speculated that those police officers convicted of serious criminal offences will be fired, as well as those who have the so-called “code f.” A concerned citizen might wonder how come that police officers sentenced for serious offences are not already discharged and, if so, how can they fight crime. Are there that many police officers with criminal past? Should it not be that the courts have the final say when it comes to determining who is a criminal and who is not? Moreover, it was never explained what the “code f” actually stands for or that, among other things, it might include things like neurosis. Later, in the very same tabloid newspaper, the Minister of Interior publically announced that a number of employees in the police will be persecuted and that “there will be no criminals working in the police or recruiting within the force.”

What is actually going on in the Serbian police?

Exposition

The Ministry of Interior (MoI) has to lay off 1696 employees pursuant to the Law on Determining the Maximum Number of Employees in the Public Sector. This task has to be finalised by the end of January, but it was postponed to March 2016. The process itself started according to the Law. In early December the MoI amended the Rulebook on Internal Organisation and Systematisation of Work Positions. The Sector for Human Resources requested from all Regional Police Directorates to submit the lists of police officers for layoff. At the same time, the daily Informer published an article on the great purge within the police. No other media released this information and the Rulebook itself is marked as a classified document. Afterwards, the Police Union of Serbia announced that the MoI had completed the lists of employees who will be fired on the account of security threats or personal assessments of their superiors. The Law was applied expeditiously, yet there are two problems with its implementation.

The processing of personal data in the procedure of determining security threats is not appropriately defined in the old Law on Police, which was at that time still in force. The type of information to be processed, the persons in charge of the procedure, the collection and storing of data, the length for keeping this data on the record and its use were all not appropriately specified in the Law. The MoI is well aware of this problem, which is why it adopted a Rulebook for Determining Security Threats—only three days before amending the Rulebook on Systematisation of Work Positions. The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection initiated the oversight procedure because the bylaws cannot be used as a legal basis for regulating the processing of personal data.

Personal assessments made by high-ranking police officers cannot be used as a legal basis for firing someone. Moreover, former police officers claim that even those in charge of compiling these lists were “blackmailed” by being threatened to lose their jobs if they do not abide by the orders and come up with names to compile the lists. The process of rationalisation of police would have been much clearer had the criteria for layoff been disclosed. In his New Year’s interview for daily Politika, the Minister of Interior did not provide an answer regarding the criteria for layoff. He only gave an explanation as to the reasons for why the rationalisation is being done in the first place: “certain organisational units within certain sectors will cease to exist.”

Rising action

The lists of people to be fired were compiled. Several hundreds of decisions for transferring employees to made-up posts were handed out: the Coordinator of Risk Assessment Activities, Risk Assessment of Higher Order, Independent Risk Assessment Activities and Risk Assessment Activities, which all turned out to be a road towards getting fired. However, not all of them will be laid off, because a Commission was set up with the task of determining who among them will no longer be working in the police. The Assistant to the Police Director is at the same time Head of the Commission, while the rest is made up of 13 additional members, including the members of the representative police unions—the Police Union of Serbia and the Independent Union of Police. The police unions managed to become represented in the commission only after talking directly to the Prime Minister. The Union of Serbian Police was not allowed to participate in the Commission’s work but was only referred to submit their complaints and suggestions to the representative police unions. The Independent Police Union of Serbia announced protests of police officers against the planned layoff.

The tension is rising. Suddenly, the media started speculating that the Head of Police, Milorad Veljović, will be retired or dismissed from his position. The dismissal scenario has been occasionally brought up several times throughout his nine-year long mandate as a Head of Police, which points to the deficiencies in the law implementation. It is not good for a democratic country that announcements like this usually take place in the atmosphere of purge. One might think that even the Head of Police Veljović was on the layoff list. The reasons behind his dismissal, at least according to the media, was the fact that the Minister of Interior was dissatisfied with Veljović’s failure to execute the police rationalisation in line with the set up criteria, but rather basing it on his personal discretion. The Minister stated that the Head of Police was leaving because he fulfilled all preconditions for a retirement. The previous Minister of Interior, Ivica Dačić, claimed the same thing three years ago, stating the same reasons on the occasion of publishing the call for the new Head of Police. Regardless of this, Veljović was reappointed. In addition, even the new Draft Law on Police stipulates that Milorad Veljović will remain at his current position, the Head of Police, until his mandate expires.

The whole situation begs the question as to why now, with the adoption of the new Law on Police and the concurrent process of police rationalisation, the new announcement of the Head of Police’s dismissal emerges anew.

Immediately afterwards the speculations followed that the Head of Traffic Police Directorate, Vladimir Rebić, will become the new Head of Police. The problem with this type of announcements in the media, and it is safe to say that the information is probably leaking from the police, is that the speculations about the new Head of Police appeared before the public call was released and the selection commission was set up. More precisely, the prescribed procedure was not followed, leading us to the question—why do we even need the laws? Up until this point, no one was concerned with the issue of what the Head of Police should be working on, as if this question is utterly irrelevant.

Climax

The MoI’s State Secretary, Jana Ljubičić, announced that one State Secretary, one Advisor and approximately 20 employees from the Minister’s Cabinet will be leaving the Ministry as well. It was not said why, but it was pointed out that the police reform is starting from the top and there will be no one under protection. At the same time, an astrologist is predicting that in 2016 the police will be functioning very well, with the reduction in crime and corruption rates as a consequence. Immediately afterwards, in a police action Cutter (“Rezač”), 79 people were arrested on the charges of committing a series of offences in the area of financial crime and corruption in the period from 2004 and onwards. Those apprehended ended up on the daily Blic’s cover page, where their photographs were published with police records being shown in the background across the front whole page. The tension was rising, with very much needed resolution nowhere in sight.

Understandably, the process of police rationalisation was not stopped. The Commission processed 696 complaints, which is 47% out of the total number of decisions for transfers that were handed out. Only those complaints that were submitted by the representative police unions were processed by the Commission. A logical question needs to be asked as to the reasons for not reviewing all the complaints, because the Decision for setting up the Commission does not explicitly proscribe that only those complaints submitted by the representative police unions will be processed.

In the meantime, the Independent Police Union of Serbia is holding against the MoI the fact that the decisions for transfers were given to the women who were pregnant or on maternity leaves at the time, as well as to the war veterans and sick individuals. The MoI dismisses these claims. Then, on the same day and at the same time, the Independent Police Union of Serbia and the MoI organised two separate press conferences. At the former one the protests were announced. At the latter one it was concluded that Serbia is a safe country. It is assumed that at this point a concerned citizen of Serbia has no idea about what is going on. State institutions are informing the citizens that they should feel safe while at the same time the employees of MoI are organising protests. The suspense is on the rise. Police officer N.K. from Nova Varoš passed away after having shot himself in the head. Daily Kurir reported he committed this act out of fear of getting fired, while daily Blic pointed this was almost certainly not the case given the fact he was not put on the layoff list. The police protests were organised and the Head of Police Union Unity (Sloga) went on a hunger strike because of the unclear criteria for the layoff in police.

Falling action

The New Year approaches. The Government decided that Milorad Veljović is no longer Head of Police and he was appointed as an Advisor to the Prime Minister for regional and national security. He is also scheduled for a 1.25% pension raise, as is the case with all the retirees as of 1 January 2016. It is peculiar, to say the least, that a fired Police Director is appointed as an Advisor to the Head of the Government. It is most likely a matter of compromise, if taken into account that Veljović did spend nine years running the Police Directorate under three different Ministers and four different Governments. The procedure itself is nothing new, since even some of the demoted Police Generals have been occasionally transferred to the Department for Work Enhancement (Odeljenje za unapređenje rada, the unit about which there is no information in the MoI’s Information Booklet). Be that as it may, the only thing certain is that the reasons behind this dismissal are hidden.

Two different official press releases came out regarding the dismissal of the Head of Police. The Government announced that Veljović has been dismissed. The MoI announced that the Head of Traffic Police Directorate, Vladimir Rebić, will become the new Acting Head of Police. It was stated that the reason for this dismissal was that Milorad Veljović had fulfilled all legal requirements for his retirement. Head of Police Veljović could have been retired even three years ago. Moreover, the dismissal procedure would have gone with much less hassle had this been the only reason.

For two weeks there were no signs that the open call for the new Head of Police will be published. Only in the Minister of Interior’s New Year interview for daily Politika it was stated that the call will be subject to the new Law on Police, which stipulates the necessary criteria for this post, and that the call will be launched once the new Law is adopted. The Law is currently being discussed in the parliamentary procedure. However, it is worth noticing that even the current Law on Police also proscribes that a public call has to be launched for the Head of Police and also stipulates the criteria for this position. Moreover, a question must be asked as to why it was not waited for the new Law to be adopted, which also proscribes open calls for the positions of Regional Police Directorates and not only for the Head of Police. The fact is that, by the decision of the Minister of Interior, the Head of Regional Police Directorate Niš, Srđan Grekulović, was also dismissed from his post for the same reasons of fulfilling the criteria for his retirement. The Head of the Regional Centre of the Security Intelligence Service (BIA) in the same city, Ninoslav Mitić, took over Grekulović’s post. This speaks volumes about the double standards at play.

Police officer A.V. was seriously injured after having shot himself in the head from his service pistol in the Belgrade neighbourhood of Karaburma.

Resolution

It is indisputable that the number of public sector employees has to be reduced, including the police. However, the way this is being conducted has to be disputed—hastily, abruptly and without any plan. This is why it is necessary to have the criteria for police rationalisation made publicly available, as well as to explain how the process itself is being executed. The Commission for analysing the transfer decisions regarding the Risk Assessment job posts should have drafted a report after this work was completed and should have presented it to the Committee for Defence and Internal Affairs of the Parliament. This report should have also been made publically available. It is necessary that the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection finalises the report on the oversight procedure regarding security threats before the process of rationalisation is completed. The Ombudsman should initiate a procedure for determining irregularities in the police rationalisation procedure. The Rulebook on Internal Organisation and Systematisation of Work Positions in MoI should be made available to the public, as is the case in Croatia and Montenegro.

At the end of 2014, the MoI set a priority: the main criteria for employment and advancement in police service are the professional records and personal integrity. Moreover, the most important changes in the new Law on Police are those pertaining to the human resources management. This is why the appointment of the new Head of Police should be transparent in its fullest. It is important to have a public call instead of speculations with different names. The discussion about the new Head of Police should not be resorted to debates on political party or personal affiliations of the candidate, but rather the MoI’s priorities–fight against organised crime and corruption, organisational reform of the MoI, Community Policing and European integrations–and whether the candidate is fit for these tasks. It is mandatory that the future Head of Police is a professional with the understanding of the need to depoliticise the police, as well as with the knowledge on the changes that the new Law on Police will bring. Finally, it is important not to repeat the experience of Veljović’s reappointment, when for more than a year the public call had not been launched, or to have somebody in the acting capacity for a period of 17 months, as it was the case with the Criminal Force Directorate.

This is the only way towards resolving the New Year police drama, increasing transparency, strengthening the police integrity and rebuilding citizens’ trust in police service.

Forty days of police reform

28 November 2015: a meeting was held between the Independent Union of Police and the Minister’s Cabinet about the information that the layoff lists were being made.

29 November 2015: the new Rulebook on the Security Vetting Procedure and the Content of the Questionnaire for Determining the Existence of Security Threats came into force, providing one of the bases for getting fired from the MoI.

31 November 2015: the Government adopted a Decision to reduce the number of employees in the public sector, which determined how many people should be fired.

1 December 2015: the changes were made to the Rulebook on Internal Organisation and Systematisation of Work Positions at the MoI by which fictitious work positions of “risk assessment” were created. The employees transferred to this position should be fired.

1 December 2015: the Sector for Human Resources of MoI sent requests to the Regional Police Directorates to draw up lists of officers for which there will be no need for future work engagement.

1 December 2015: daily Informer published an article claiming there will be a massive layoff in MoI where 1,000 members of the police Criminal Force Directorate will be fired.

1 December 2015: the Police Union of Serbia had a meeting with the Prime Minister where the creation of a special Commission for examining the process of rationalisation was promised.

2 December 2015: the Police union of Serbia announced that the MoI had finished compiling the lists of employees who should be fired due to security threats or based solely on the discretion of their superiors.

2 December 2015: a meeting was held between the Independent Union of Police and the Minister’s Cabinet where it was confirmed that this Union will participate in the Commission’s work and announcements were made that around 1600 police employees will be laid off.

7 December 2015: the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection initiated oversight procedure of the implementation of the Law on Protection of Personal Data by the Ministry of Interior.

9 December 2015: a decision on the maximum number of employees in the MoI came into effect on the basis of which 1696 employees should be fired.

9 December 2015: a meeting was held between the Independent Union of Police and the Prime Minister and it was agreed that all to-be-fired police personnel will be a part of the social program that will be more favourable compared to other state bodies.

11 December 2015: the Minister of Interior declares that a persecution against some of the employees in the police is being organized and that the criminals will not be working or recruiting in the police.

17 December 2015: the decisions for transfer to jobs of risk assessment were handed out to the MoI employees.

18 December 2015: by the decision of the Minister of Interior, a Commission was formed with the task to examine the validity of the decisions. Its setup involved four members from the two representative police unions.

19 December 2015: news was placed in the media that the Police Director Milorad Veljović will be retired or dismissed because the rationalisation in the police was not realised according to the prescribed criteria, but according to the personal discretion and preferences of the Director.

21 December 2015: the work of the Commission for analysis of the decisions for the risk assessment job posts started.

24 December 2015: the Union of Serbian Police sent a request to the Office of the Minister and the Sector for Human Resources to participate in the work of the Commission that will review the decisions made on transfers. The request was denied.

24 December 2015: policeman N. K. from Nova Varoš died after shooting himself in the head. Dailies Kurir and Blic attributed different reasons to this suicide.

25 December 2015: at a press conference, the Independent Police Union of Serbia announced protest in front of the Palace of Serbia for unlawful dismissal of honest officers. At the same time a press conference was organized by the MoI where they presented the results of police work in the second half of 2015.

25 December 2015: the MoI State Secretary announced that one State Secretary, one Advisor and about 20 employees in the Minister’s Cabinet will be leaving the MoI. The reason for their departure was not explained.

26 December 2015: 79 people were arrested on suspicion that they committed more offences since 2004 in the field of financial crime and corruption, causing more than 100 million euros in damages.

27 December 2015: the Independent Police Union of Serbia organised protests that were not supported by the two representative police unions or the Union of Serbian Police. A meeting was arranged with the MoI representatives.

28 December 2015: a meeting was held between the Independent Police Union of Serbia and the MoI representatives where it was requested that, in the process of rationalisation, special attention is devoted to the vulnerable groups.

28 December 2015: President of the Police Union Unity went on a hunger strike because of the unclear criteria for proclaiming MoI employees’ work posts redundant.

29 December 2015: the Commission reviewed 696 complaints submitted by the MoI employees on the transfer decisions to risk assessment job posts and it was decided that, out of this number, 403 employees should be excluded from the further rationalisation.

31 December 2015: at the Government meeting, the Head of Police Milorad Veljović was dismissed from his office. As of 1 January 2016, his duty was taken over by the Head of Traffic Police Directorate, Vladimir Rebić.

2 January 2016: President of the Police Union Unity ceased with his hunger strike.

6 January 2016: police officer A. V. was severely injured after having shot himself in the head from his service pistol in the Belgrade neighbourhood of Karaburma.

The article was originally published in weekly magazine Vreme of 21 of January 2016..
Translated by Bojan Elek.