Ákos Hadházy has received the applications for the presidency of the National Asset Recovery and Protection Office (NVVH) and believes that Anna Unger, the candidate elected to the post, would not have placed even in the top 60 under a genuine scoring system. Meanwhile, one of the Tisza Party’s deputy speakers has said there was indeed a scoring process – just not as one would expect in a serious job competition.
She should not have been called for interview
Ákos Hadházy has disclosed further details on the selection of the leadership of the National Asset Recovery and Protection Office (NVVH). The former MP claims he obtained the full list of applications for the posts of president and deputy president, together with the applicants’ professional CV data, and on this basis finds it hard to explain how Anna Unger reached the second round of the selection process.
According to Hadházy, the field included numerous candidates with substantial professional backgrounds, appropriate qualifications and managerial experience. In his view, under an objective evaluation system based on these criteria, Ms Unger “would not have made it into the top three – not even into the top 60”. He concludes from this that the selection committee cannot have properly reviewed a significant proportion of the applications.
Contorted scoring for one of the most important offices
At the heart of the dispute lies the much-discussed points system. The parliamentary call for applications stated that the three candidates with the highest scores were to be invited for personal interviews. Anikó Hallerné Nagy, a deputy speaker of parliament, later said, however, that no detailed, quantifiable objective system had existed. According to 444, the decision on who would be called for interview was ultimately taken by a simple committee vote on a 1–3 scale. Those who received a “yes” were awarded three points – and, as it happens, there were exactly three such candidates.
Never miss a headline: join Daily News Hungary’s official WhatsApp channel!
Hadházy regards this as particularly problematic because, in his view, such a procedure fundamentally undermines confidence in the independence of the NVVH’s leadership. If the office takes action against a politician, the person concerned can cry political motivation; if it does not open or closes a case, the public may suspect a political deal behind it.
Politically unsuitable candidates?
The politician also argues that creating the appearance of an open competition could backfire: in his view it would have been cleaner had the prime minister simply named a candidate, rather than presenting what looks like a preordained selection as a public contest.
According to Anikó Hallerné Nagy, it was not possible to express in points the political risks that would have arisen had someone been appointed to head the office who was later found to have ties to the NER.
If you missed: Leading candidates for Hungary’s “almighty” National Asset Recovery and Protection Office have presented their programmes
Hadházy also raised objections to the applications for the deputy presidency. He claims that 39 people applied for the public-finance post, yet no decision was taken – for which, he says, it is hard to find any explanation other than that no politically suitable candidate could be found. He added, however, that he considers it possible that Anna Unger will prove a good president and independent of the government.
The NVVH’s remit will be, on the one hand, the protection of public assets and, on the other, the conduct of investigations into circumstances in which public assets have passed into private ownership in ways giving rise to suspicion of abuse. In practice, the NVVH will function as a detached prosecutorial body, with wide-ranging powers to carry out investigations (including with the involvement of other authorities), freeze assets, and even propose the appointment of state supervisors to private companies in matters involving public assets.
