Elite Yo-Yo Employment Ukraine – Part DeuxJune 4, 2016
One month ago exactly, an entry appeared relating to the inability – or complete unwillingness – of the Ukrainian leadership to permanently remove odious, or corrupt, or useless, or incompatible people from within the system of political management, the management of State Owned Enterprises and the management of institutions of State – “Ukraine suffers from Yo-Yo employment – whereby it is seemingly almost impossible to sack senior officials, be they politicians, judiciary, military, those of the lofty entrenched ranks within the prosecutors office, the civil service or State Owned Enterprises.
Of course if the Ukrainian State would actually jail senior officials rather than sack them to simply see them returned by various methods, it would perhaps be a little harder for these people to “Yo-out” before being allowed to “Yo-back in”.
Indeed it could be argued by the cynical, that the entire system is deliberately set up to insure sacking senior people is exceptionally difficult – regardless of sins committed”
Within the last 24 hours, the Ukrainian constituency has once again been on the wrong end of Yo-Yo employment – it will surely not be the last time – for clearly there is no will to change the system.
During the re-certification of all Ukrainian police officers, via the Ministry of the Interior panels consisting of institutional and independent people, officers were assessed regarding their knowledge (or lack thereof) of law and procedures, their degree of nefariousness and corruption (if any), and their activities and acquaintances were probed.
Those who managed to get over the re-certification bar entered into the ranks of the new National Police – those which failed were sacked.
One such failure was a high ranking officer called Igor Tsyupryk, failing dismally to reach the desired standards of the new National Police according to his assessment panel.
Mr Tsyupryk felt wronged and that he had been assessed with bias by his panel. He clearly felt he was fit to wear the uniform of the new National Police – despite his assessment panel feeling quite the opposite.
Naturally, in a nod to European values, there is an appeals procedure for those that felt wronged by any assessment panel. The appeals panel duly sat, consisting of three police officers and a lawyer. Mr Tsyupryk once again failed to impress – with three of the four panelists upholding the decision of the original panel.
Mr Tsyupryk twice then being found unfit to serve the public within the National Police. So be it – good riddance to bad rubbish. The Ukrainian constituency no longer required to pay for, and indeed suffer, somebody deemed as unfit to serve them or uphold the rule of law.
The new vetting procedures seen to be working, the US, Canadian, European and Ukrainian tax payers seemingly have positive outcomes for their investment into the new National Police.
However, whilst Mr Tsyupryk will no longer work in the National Police, he has not left the institutions of State – or at least he did not leave them for long. Yo-Yo employment has indeed, arguably, now placed him in a position to do far more harm to the interests of the Ukrainian people and/or the State than he was in as a below par, if high ranking, MIA employee.
Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko has appointed a new Deputy Chief of the Department of Special Investigation Prosecutor General’s Office. This department was established to investigate the violence (and other crimes) against protesters during late 2013 – early 2014. and the alleged crimes of former-President Yanukovych and his entourage.
The new Lutsenko appointed Deputy Chief of this department is none other than Mr Igor Tsyupryk – the man twice deemed unfit to serve in the National Police by two different re-certification panels.
A reader may rhetorically ask how such a man can be placed in charge of such a sensitive and now increasingly untimely investigation within the Prosecutor General’s Office, when he has been repeatedly deemed unfit to be a police officer.
Clearly the perception will be that Mr Tsyupryk is “somebody’s man”, or has significant “kompromat” on “somebody”, or has been “inserted” to “protect the interests of somebody” so much so that a grubby deal behind the curtain has been struck between that “somebody” and Yuri Lutsenko to keep Mr Tsyupryk employed not only within the State institutional apparatus, but also at an appropriately high and potentially influential position over a very sensitive and unresolved issue.
There can be few other even remotely plausible explanations.
Mr Tsyupryk simply cannot be the only investigator capable of leading/investigating events within the remit of the department of which he is now Deputy Chief.
Indeed he is a Deputy Chief – his Chief, Sergei Gorbatyuk, must therefore be as capable of leading the department’s investigative remit before the appointment of Mr Tsyupryk, as he is since his appointment.
Further, there are those that would opine that Mr Gorbatyuk’s job just got harder due to the appointment of Mr Tsyupryk – for Mr Tsyupryk is no stranger to the events leading up to the violence against protesters between late 2013 and early 2014. Mr Tsyupryk was at one point Chief of Tactical Management and later Deputy Head of Analytical Control within the Yanukovych era Ministry of Interior machinery during that violent time.
His appointment to his latest position within the PGO, having twice failed to be re-certificated within the National Police, is likely to not only irk a great many of the Ukrainian constituency, but also reaffirm the long-held perception of Yuri Lutsenko as a grubby deal maker unfit to be Prosecutor General.
Clearly there are questions not only of the appointee suitability, but also questions of moral and ethical standing that will be raised following this appointment – and those questions are those that will linger within society for quite some time, doing little to promote increased confidence in either Yuri Lutsenko or his institution.
A reader may rightly ponder whether the day will ever come when sacked actually means permanently removed from the State system for a certain class of individual. In the meantime perhaps every reader should identify a “sacked” senior official and place bets upon how long it takes for them to be reappointed somewhere else within the State machinery.