New Guidelines to Rein in Indiscriminate Leniency in Public Sector Discipline Based on Citations

- Recommendation to enhance fairness in disciplinary leniency for 327 public institutions

- Establishing validity periods for citation and excluding vague reasons for leniency

(30, October. 2024, ACRC)

Moving forward, public institutions will face stricter limitations on using citations from institution heads as grounds to reduce disciplinary measures, addressing widespread concerns over unrestrained leniency.

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC), led by Chairperson Ryu Chul Whan, has recommended measures to the Ministry of Economy and Finance and public institutions designed to curb this overuse of citations in leniency decisions and promote fairness.

Under current practices, public institutions may reduce disciplinary actions based on not only citations from ministers or higher officials but also citations granted by heads of public institutions. This practice has drawn scrutiny for its potential to enable indiscriminate leniency.

An ACRC review reveals that, over the past five years, public institutions issued a total of 139,000 citations, 68.9% of which were issued by institution heads. Among disciplinary cases, nearly half (49.4%) saw leniency granted based on such citations, totaling 456 cases.

There were even cases where citations dating back to the 1990s were used to justify leniency, further underscoring the need for reform.

Furthermore, despite clear prohibitions under the Civil Servant Disciplinary Regulations and Public Enterprise Management Guidelines against reducing penalties for severe offenses –such as sexual misconduct, drunk driving, and abuse of power – some institutions continued to grant leniency for these violations.

In other cases, institutions where disciplinary committees consisted of 80% internal members granted significant leniency, citing reasons, such as "excessive disciplinary measures." In such cases, penalties were lowered by as many as three levels (e.g., from dismissal to a six-month salary reduction).

As such, the ACRC has introduced reforms to prevent abuse of leniency tied to citations:

• Excluding certain citations granted by public institution heads unrelated to public duties – such as contest awards, courtesy awards, or volunteer work –from being grounds for leniency

• Restricting the use of the same citation to prevent repeated leniency applications for identical citations

• Setting validity periods for citations used in leniency decisions (e.g., citations only apply for the same job rank within three years).

Moreover, public institutions will now clearly specify serious offenses that are exempt from leniency, as outlined under the Civil Servant Disciplinary Regulations. Vague reasons, such as "diligence" or "deep reflection," will be replaced with clear and objective criteria.

To ensure fairness and prevent internal bias in disciplinary committees, the ACRC also recommended:

• Increasing the proportion of external members on disciplinary committees to make up at least half of the total

• Establishing specific rules for excluding committee members with conflicts of interest from committee decisions.

Min Seong-sim, Director General of the ACRC’s Institutional Improvement Bureau, stated, "These recommendations will enhance transparency and fairness in the disciplinary leniency system, ensuring that citations in public institutions do not lead to indiscriminate leniency."