A PRACTICAL INTEGRITY GUIDE FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION LEADERS
The MĂ IMPLIC training sessions were designed for this exact purpose—to equip local leaders with the tools and confidence to govern with integrity. Instead of focusing on abstract principles, the training sessions were based on real-life examples and practical solutions, addressing daily challenges faced by mayors and council secretaries:

• Managing conflicts of interest – Identifying potential conflicts early and applying clear tools for addressing them transparently.
• Whistleblower protection – Establishing secure and anonymous channels for reporting unethical behavior, with an option for mayors to file external warnings with the National Anti-Corruption Center (CNA).
• Transparency in decision-making – Discussing practical steps to make processes more open and inclusive, from publishing meeting minutes to involving citizens in key decisions.

NAVIGATING THE COMPLEXITY OF INTEGRITY POLICIES
One of the most important aspects of the training was understanding the 14 integrity policies required for local public authorities, as outlined in Law No. 82 on Integrity (2017):

• Merit-based hiring and professional integrity – Selecting personnel based on competence, without external influence.
• Declaration of assets and personal interests – Monitoring disclosures to identify potential conflicts and discrepancies.
• Incompatibility in holding public office – Preventing overlapping roles that may create conflicts of interest.
• Hierarchy restrictions in public office – Setting limits to prevent abuse of power.
• Limitations on public endorsements – Regulating public interactions to safeguard impartiality.
• Prevention of undue influences – Creating a framework that prevents external pressures on decision-making, including reporting such influences to internal authorities or CNA.
• Conflicts of interest – Identifying and resolving situations that may compromise objective decision-making.
• Favoritism – Avoiding practices that unfairly discriminate or benefit certain individuals.
• Gifts and benefits – Prohibiting their acceptance to prevent undue influence over decisions.
• Response to corruption incidents – Adopting a clear policy for addressing corruption cases.
• Zero tolerance for integrity violations – Establishing an environment that discourages integrity breaches.
• Transparency in decision-making – Publishing decision-making processes and engaging citizens.
• Access to public interest information – Ensuring citizens can access key public information.
• Transparent management of public assets and finances – Ensuring fairness in managing public resources.

For many participants, policies such as transparency and merit-based hiring were already known and relatively easy to implement. However, aspects like post-employment restrictions and zero-tolerance approaches to corruption were seen as new elements requiring further clarification. While some urban municipalities (Level 1 APLs) with larger teams had already established tools to implement integrity policies, rural areas faced more challenges. Certain measures, such as conflict of interest declarations, transparency in decision-making, and financial transparency, were successfully implemented. More complex policies, such as asset declarations or hierarchical restrictions, often required intervention from the National Integrity Authority (ANI) to ensure compliance. Larger, more experienced municipalities shared valuable insights and practical advice with smaller communities on implementing integrity policies. This spirit of collaboration highlighted the importance of peer learning to overcome common challenges.