Since last summer, such a requirement has also been in force for the executive leadership of local governments.
The requirement was initiated by the President of Latvia, arguing that it is a matter of national security. However, as Latvian Radio reports, it has raised several important issues. Not only is there the question of who has the right to effectively block the public’s choice for political office, there is the question of who even gets to know about who has been barred on security grounds and for how long such bars will remain in place.
The idea that special clearance for working with state secrets is also required for municipal executive directors and their deputies was born at Riga Castle in November 2023.
“This is related to the geopolitical situation, to national defense planning, to civil defense planning. And I will propose establishing a mandatory state secret clearance requirement for local government heads, their deputies, and executive directors,” said President Edgars Rinkēvičs at the time.
He said the measures would “significantly improve cooperation between local governments and institutions responsible for national security, defense, and internal affairs.”
Soon the president’s idea reached the Saeima, where it fairly quickly was transformed into law.
The rule on mandatory clearance for state secrets for local government leaders and deputy mayors will come into effect from this summer – after the next local elections on June 7.
Access to secrets has already been required for local government executive directors and their deputies since last summer. The State Security Service (VDD) has been conducting checks on 43 senior officials of local government executive branches for six months.
In mid-January, the security service provided typically sparse information: “The service has denied access to state secrets to one leading municipal official, but is issuing it to eight others for a shortened term – one, two or three years instead of the maximum five years.”
No names were mentioned, but the media immediately calculated that Raimonds Olehno, the executive director of the city of Rēzekne, was the person left without a permit. He had already been suspended from work for a long time for allowing municipal employees to take an expensive trip to Prague during the financial crisis in Rēzekne. On the same day when the news about an executive director being left without clearance became public, Olehno submitted his resignation.
No info, no comment
“I left my job at the municipality by mutual agreement as of the 24th [January], so I will not be making any comments. Thank you!” Olehno said at the time.
Margarita Voiciša, head of the Rēzekne municipality administration, explained that the municipality does not currently have an executive director or deputy executive director. After a job competition is concluded, Rēzekne will request permission from the State Security Service for access to state secrets.
It remains to be seen whether the now former executive director of Rēzekne is really the one to whom the State Security Service denied access, and if so, it is unlikely that the trip to Prague was the reason for not receiving security clearance, no matter how ill-advised it might have been. However, it is not possible to find out for sure.
‘This issue cannot be discussed’
It is also not possible to determine which eight executive directors or deputies have received a shortened permit, because – whther by coincidence or not – soon after Latvian Radio expressed interest, all municipalities received a letter from the Latvian Association of Local Governments stating that they were not allowed to discuss this issue.
This was acknowledged by Ventspils Regional Council Chairman Aivars Mucenieks from the Greens and Farmers’ Union: “We received [instructions] from the Union of Local Governments that we should not disclose it. The State Security Service was of the opinion that it was a personal document, that it was personal data protection, so we should not disclose it.”
The State Security Service, as usual, preferred to explain this situation in writing: “The State Security Service has not prevented employers from disclosing the period for which special permits have been issued to local government executive directors and their deputies. At the same time, we draw attention to the fact that employers are prohibited from disclosing such information by the regulatory framework for the protection of personal data.”
When asked to explain which specific regulation prohibits the disclosure of such information, the security service stated:
“It is not within the competence of the State Security Service, as a state security institution, to explain issues related to the protection of personal data.
“We invite you to inquire about the reasons for not disclosing the term of special permits with local governments and institutions responsible for the protection of personal data. Only the person to whom the special permit for access to state secrets has been issued is entitled to comment publicly on the relevant information.”
So, the municipalities say they have received instructions from this same security institution not to disclose anything, but the security service, on the other hand, explained to Latvian Radio’s correspondent that the municipality is allowed to disclose the clearance period, but the official himself is allowed to comment.
The executive director of Varakļāni municipality, Oskars Kančs, told Latvian Radio: “Why should such information be disseminated? What justification and right do you have to ask me for it?! Do you understand that this is sensitive information? It is a person’s private matter. You have no right to obtain such information. It is not open information. The State Security Service warned and clearly and distinctly said that we should not provide such information.”
Researcher: The public has a right to know
Kristīne Līce, advisor to the President, said that the head of state initiated the clearance case because local governments play an increasingly important role in national security. But doesn’t the public have the right to know which officials in local governments have fallen under suspicion?
“No, it would be unprofessional for me to comment on this. This is the work of the State Security Service,” Līce replied.
As noted above, the State Security Service said it was not within its competence to explain such issues.
Good governance and anti-corruption researcher Līga Stafecka from the public policy center “Providus” drew attention to the fact that eight executive directors, or every fifth one has a reduced term limit.
Stafecka believes that the public certainly has the right to know the names of those who were left completely without clearance.
“Otherwise, we have a situation where we can learn about violations by local government officials in minor cases, for example, administrative violations regarding conflicts of interest have been published on the KNAB (anti corruption agency) website, which are much less significant violations than the risks or considerations why access to state secrets is not granted. Then it turns out that we know a lot about small violations, but about risks related to state secrets, we do not know which official has been denied this access,” explained Stafecka.
After a conversation with Latvian Radio, the Chairman of the Saeima Committee on State Administration and Local Government, Oļegs Burovs, concluded that the issue of the public’s right to find out whether local government officials have access to secrets and for how long should be included in one of the meetings of the committee he chairs.
“Maybe I can agree that this is an issue that we should really consider and await clarification on, given that we passed this law. Now, before the massive checks that await us after the local elections, society and everyone should have one clear position,” Burovs reasoned.
The law stipulates that mayors and deputies will first be elected, then they will be evaluated by the State Security Service, but only after the evaluation will it be concluded which council leaders can remain in their seats. So in at least some cases voters might, without knowing it, be casting their ballots for politicians who will not ultimately be allowed to take up their positions – or who have received clearance that does not even extend the full length of their four year term of office.