In the May 11, 2009 edition of Hetq, we took a look at the situation at the “National Technical Safety Center” under the jurisdiction of the RoA Ministry of Emergency Situations. Major-General Ashot Petrosyan, who heads the center, has employed many of his relatives in the state structure at high salary levels. The General himself enjoys a monthly salary of 1 million drams. (See: Patronage Aplenty: The “National Technical Safety Center” Employs Friends and Family).

Over the past month we tried to arrange a meeting with the head of the NTSC, registered as a SNOC (state non-commercial organization). We haven’t been able to do so. Instead, on May 13, we met with Mher Shahgeldyan, Minister of Emergency Situations, who shied away from giving any information on the record. He passed the buck to Ashot Petrosyan, stating the he alone was responsible for the affairs at the NTSC. We requested that Minister Shahgeldyan arrange an interview with Mr. Petrosyan but he was dead set against any face to face meeting and told us to submit our questions in writing. He promised that he would deliver the questions to General Petrosyan and that we’d get our answers a short time afterwards. On May 15, we submitted a set of seven questions to Minister Shahgeldyan. We called the ministry a few times just to follow up and were told that the questionnaire was being processed and that we receive a reply either today or tomorrow. We wound up receiving an official reply to our questions on June 8; a wait of twenty-four days. The NTSC failed to answer a few of our questions. Below, is our set of questions that we submitted and the reply we received? Our first question dealt with the one million dram salary of the National Technical Safety Center’s director. We asked who sets such a salary level and how is such a high salary justified. Here is Ashot Petrosyan’s response: The salary fund for the National Technical Safety Center is allocated by the government which sets its parameters according to revenues received from services rendered to various enterprises by the Center, a portion of which is earmarked for salaries. Taking into consideration the degree of responsibility and urgency, the director of the SNOC can earmark a portion of the profits for purchasing technical resources or to raise salaries. At the same time, a process is underway in the system to lower salary levels. According to Article 6, Point 1, of the RoA “Law Concerning Non-commercial State Organizations” – “State organizations can only engage in entrepreneurial activities according to the law or according to the decision of the founder when such activity and its type is clearly prescribed. State organizations can only engage in licensed activities when such license is obtained.” Point 2 states that – “Profits realized by state organizations in the course of their activities is allocated to realize the aims of the organization as prescribed by its charter. It is the founder of the organization who fixes the bylaws for the utilization of such profits.” At the same time, Article 11, Point 2, clearly states, “The charter of state organizations must include bylaws for the utilization of state organization profits.” The charter of the National Technical Safety Center does not clearly define how the profits from its entrepreneurial activities can be spent. For example, Point 17 of its charter merely notes that, “Profits derived from the entrepreunrial activities of the NTSC are to be utilized to achieve the objectives of the Center as defined in its charter.” In other words, raising the salaries of the SNOC Director Ashot Petrosyan and other employees at the expense of the NTSC’s profits isn’t directly envisaged by the charter. In reality, salary increases based on profit levels isn’t what the charter requires but rather the personal desire of Ashot Petrosyan. Regarding the level of Ashot Petrosyan’s salary, he now receives 1.2 million drams and not the 1 million we previously had noted. Perhaps the salary level set by the law is less, but since the SNOC engages in “entrepreneurial” activities and realizes a profit the director has given himself a wage increase. Minister Mher Shahgeldyan, a representative of the government, appears to be at ease with this fact. In our written inquiry, we also requested the official wage records for the NTSC’s staff. Mr. Petrosyan didn’t forward any such document We also noted in our inquiry that several relatives of Mr. Petrosyan were employed at the NTSC – his daughter, son-in-law, cousin, cousin’s grandson, brother-in-law, godson, and others. Most lack any educational background corresponding to the positions they hold. We asked how these individuals were hired when they evidently lack any prerequisite education Here’s the answer we received: Serineh Petrosyan, Director Ashot Petrosyan’s daughter, is employed at the Center as the director’s assistant. She is a graduate of Yerevan State University’s Faculty of Economics and worked at HayEconomBank from 2000 – 2005. Her long-term employment at the Center is now under review. Director Petrosyan’s cousin, Hovhannes Petrosyan, is employed as a driver. Since 1991 he has served in an assault landing detachment and, along with Ashot Petrosyan, has followed a military path in life. Director Petrosyan’s son-in-law is not employed by the NTSC. If there are other individuals working at the Center who share the same last name as the director this does not signify that they are necessarily relatives of Director Petrosyan. We still claim that the other employees with the last name “Petrosyan” are in fact Ashot Petrosyan’s kith and kin. Let’s list them once again: Samvel Petrosyan (grandson of Ashot Petrosyan’s uncle) Title: Analysis Expert; Anahit Petrosyan (another relative) Title: Leading Expert; Dept of Regulations and Methodology. (This   department is supposed to draft regulations and present them to government for passage. To date, however, this nine member department hasn’t drafted any regulations.); Zhora Petrosyan (Ashot Petrosyan’s brother, some staffers say his cousin) Title: General Division Head; Vladimir Hovsepyan (Ashot Petrosyan’s godson) Title: Chief of Examinations Office; Hayk Tovmasyan (brother-in-law) Title: Specialist. As to the claim that Ashot Petrosyan’s son-in-law (Serineh Petrosyan’s husband) is not employed at the Center, we again assert that he does and that he receives a handsome salary. Serineh Petrosyan receives a monthly salary of 600,000 drams and is facing unemployment not because her father, Ashot Petrosyan, wishes it, but because he is being forced to lay-off some of his relatives in response to Hetq’s May11 expose. Since we were never provided with the NTSC’s payroll we can’t tell you the salary of Mr. Petrosyan's other relatives. We should note that many of his relatives work at the Center’s regional branch. We also noted in our inquiry the fact that NTSC Director Petrosyan and other employees drive around in expensive foreign cares registered to the SNOC. This only leads us to believe that vehicle expenses at the NTSC make up a substantial part of the operating expenses. We questioned the justification for such luxury at the expense of the state budget and specifically wanted to know the number of foreign-made vehicles at the NTSC and how they were obtained. We received the following in reply; an answer that skirts around the issue we raised. “The SNOC has a number of mid-line foreign vehicles that were purchased with other than state funds with the permission of the authorized body in existence before the NTSC was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Emergency Situations. These vehicles are essentially used in the pursuit of the aims of the SNOC as defined by its charter. In addition, in light of the current financial crisis, two of the NTSC’s vehicles are now off limits to the staff. Maintenance expenses are also covered by non-state funds.” Let’s list those vehicles that the NTSC describes as “mid-line” – Volkswagen Touareg (market price $52,000); Volkswagen Passat ($35,000); Volkswagen Jetta ($25,000), etc. Director Petrosyan drives around in a Volkswagen Passat that already belonged to the NTSC. The question begging for an answer is who paid for these vehicles, if not the government, and why? Furthermore, who pays for their upkeep and gas? We also noted in our written inquiry that Hetq had received a number of calls from irate citizens displeased with the discriminatory treatment they had received at the NTSC. In particular, they complained about the fact that the rates for the same examinations conducted by the NTSC vary from enterprise to enterprise. Such rate variances are also confronted by limited liability companies. Thus, we asked how examination rates are derived at. This is the explanation that we received: There is a fixed price list for the SNOC’s examinations, based on the construction of the business in question, the level of complexity, etc. The indices and methodology used at fixing a price is standard for all and is unilaterally fixed. In certain cases the set prices are lower than the actual cost of the inspection itself. For example, elevator system inspection in high-rise buildings cost 10,000 – 13,000 drams but is set at 2,930 drams in the SNOC price list. The lower price takes into account that these sums must be collected from the buildings residents, the building association, and many are in no position to pay. However, such inspections are necessary for the safety of our citizens. Overall, the rates for such services in 2007 decreased by 10-12% as compared to 2006. Furthermore, in light of the negative impact of the financial crisis on the nation’s economy, a new price list for the NTSC’s services has gone into effect as of April 1, 2009 and will reflect a 25-30% rate cut. Readers should note that we supplied the NTSC with specific examples of rate discrepancies. For example, on June 11, 2008, Yerevan High School #2 signed a contract with the NTSC to inspect its two heating boilers at a price of 56,340 drams. The NTSC then signed a contract to inspect the two boilers at Yerevan High School #166 for 94, 660 drams. We received no explanation as to the difference in rates charged. We should add that the same boilers are used in all public schools. There’s a similar rate variance when it comes to elevator inspections. On July 10, 2008, the manager of Building 38 in Yerevan 13th District signed a 4,980 dram contract with the NTSC to have the elevator inspected. On July 22, 2008, the NTSC signed a 2,930 dram contract with the “Jrashat Management Board” to inspect an elevator at Jrashat Street 82, Building #1. In its response, the NTSC barely responded to the fact that its Department of Regulations and Methodology, which is supposed to draft regulations and present them to government for passage, has failed to produce any such regulation to date. All the while, the department’s nine staffers continue to get paid.  The NTSC also skirted the issue regarding what it has done with the 3 million drams it received last year when it won a government bid to formulate proposals; work that it has failed to perform. The NTSC also was silent when asked to comment on whether or not it and the private companies that conduct the actual inspections work on a level playing field. Let’s attempt to explain why the NTSC would rather evade commenting on the issue. It turns out that the technical security registry is in the possession of the National Technical Safety Center, the SNOC. Since owners of at-risk production facilities are obligated to provide information on a yearly basis as to how many alarms of a technical nature it experienced over the course of a year, and since it is the NTSC that sets the fines imposed for violating the safety laws, it seeks to gain from its advantageous position by pressuring clients into signing a contact with the SNOC and not private contractors. We would also beg to differ with the NTSC’s claim that it is quite economical when it comes to expenditures. We have in our possession a copy of Ashot Petrosyan’s April 4, 2007 directive # 55, according to which the SNOC’s director is allocated 4,000 minutes for monthly calls and 5,000 minutes for overseas calls and calls within the cell phone network, including international faxes. The directive also sets aside 1,500 and 3,000 minutes respectively for the deputy director and 1,400 and 2,500 for department heads. We should note that this directive is still in effect at the SNOC. These are lavish figures by any stretch of the word since it is the field specialist themselves that need to make so many calls, not the bureaucrats sitting behind their desks. On the contrary, 1,000 and 1,500 minutes respectively, are the limits set collectively for every four employees, other than technical service agents.