Gunita Rakēviča is interviewed by Māris Liopa, director of the forestry and related industries portal zemeunvalsts.lv, and Pauls Rēvelis, editor of zemeunvalsts.lv.

Some time will have passed since the start of the administrative-territorial reform, a different Saeima is now in office and there is already talk of the need to revisit the reform, because residents of certain municipalities are unhappy with what has happened. The Latvian Local Government Training Centre is in the business of educating people, so you see the situation in local governments as it were from the outside, as it were from another angle.

I think this year will be quite hard for local governments, very hard even, because, as everywhere in the country, the difficult financial situation is being felt in local governments too – work is organised and carried out in a mode of austerity or economising that could almost be called a crisis. Practically everything happens on one condition – save money. I would add that this will certainly have an effect on the learning environment as well.

To quote the classic – “what the saver saves, the robber takes”. Talking to people from various local governments, I have heard more than once: something has not turned out well or successfully enough, because... in the public procurement the cheapest tender or the cheapest option had to be chosen. We could quote another classic: “If you are rich enough to buy cheap goods...”

At the beginning of the year, incidentally, we found ourselves in a similar situation – namely, a procurement is announced, and the service provider in its day-to-day work charges a mid-range price for its service. In the procurement that same service provider submits a tender at a price nearly six times lower. What has happened? Why?

In conversation with the recipients of the service in question I heard concerns that with such an approach you may well end up receiving something very perfunctory. The Local Government Training Centre's service includes a lecturer, teaching materials, premises with modern technical equipment, free parking for clients, lunch and so on. Should such a situation be regarded as fair competition? By competition I mean differences between tenders within reasonable limits, but this looks more like the law of the jungle.

You might call it the destruction of that particular market segment. I think the tender rules need to change and...

...they must not state that the only selection criterion is the lowest price. We can choose specialists in the relevant field or holders of doctorates as our lecturers, but... this lowest price will count for more than their knowledge... cheapness against high quality, with quality losing out for formal reasons. It should be remembered that there are always examples of good practice too, in which quality requirements are also laid down, making it possible to deliver a professional service, with all the parties involved satisfied with the result achieved.

It looks as though the practical side of procurement in Latvia has for some time now been a matter tied precisely to problems of quality. Is it known how neighbouring countries deal with the situation, and do they have such problems at all?

At one time we built up and established rather good contacts and cooperation with a similar training centre in Lithuania, which, unfortunately, tailed off somewhat with the onset of C19 and the restrictions it brought. The only thing I can add is that we have observed such sharp changes precisely in recent times.

Speaking of the lowest-price tender – how long will the business concerned be able to work like that, and does it have any reserves of resources at all?

I dare say it will manage for a while. Even so, relations between the parties need to be respectful if they are to last, with training programmes that are relevant and applicable in the working environment being developed together with experts in the field and then delivered with an understanding of participants' needs.

Coming back to the first question, the administrative-territorial reform seems to have been the item on the agenda that the political forces forming the government of the day were able to agree on at the time. A certain amount of time has passed and – step by step – a wish to return to what was before is emerging in local governments, and not only among the representatives of political forces.

Political decisions are political; we have nothing to do with them. The changes continue and are still under way, they are long drawn out and their conclusion or continuation is not really clear. In many local governments there is no sense of stability. It is often said: “Nothing is going to change anyway!”, but we know and see perfectly well that this is not so and will not be so – for example, people change, existing staff take on new duties and so on. Human resources are a rather delicate instrument. Everything that is stable is good; everything unknown creates anxiety.

The reform, as we know, will continue, and I have already mentioned that in many places financial capacity has shrunk, which is felt in the field of training too.

At the organisational stage of the reform it was explained that larger municipalities would make substantial savings.

I can assess the situation from our training centre's point of view – local governments are taking part in staff training, the process has not stopped; if we compare 2022 and 2023 we see no significant differences. There are some, but they are not so pronounced.

What is most in demand in terms of course content?

Property management. That is usually question No. 1, whether we are talking about forests or about local government property; budget preparation, building management and tariff calculations are also topical.

The provision of legal services is likewise an inexhaustible subject. Last year social workers studied the provision of legal services with us. Why, what connection do they have with it? Social workers have clients and quite often the social worker is virtually the only person the recipients of the service (the clients) meet. People want to know specific things and the social worker is often the first person to ask. For example, the ever-topical questions about social guarantees, property, including sorting out inheritance, and about everyday matters. As we know, staff in the social sphere change, and those who have only just or recently started work have to learn all of the above.

Continuity seems to matter in any post, and on top of that there are a great many amendments and changes to the laws.

Course content is offered in line with what is topical in legislation, and to provide opportunities for professional development in a very wide range of fields. Topics are often suggested by the course participants themselves, citing the specific aspects of their work that they want to study in greater depth in order to do their everyday job well. For example, at the beginning of the year we had a call saying that in-depth knowledge of running parent support groups was needed.

Of course, there are lecturers who come to us with their own offer. The important thing is that the lecturer has practical working experience in the particular subject.

In short – you are not a training ground.

Precisely! A lecturer must have a good command of the subject, in which they present theoretical information and also share practical experience! Then it is a gain for the participants and they feel their time spent learning was worthwhile!

Back in the day, when organising lectures, we used to ask the audience for their assessment. Surprisingly or not, the audience rated very poorly those lecturers...

...who are markedly theoretical.

It is wonderful to “win people over” with a good, substantial conversation; it is not good to wear them out with theory...

A theoretical grounding matters, but... if you cannot illustrate or support it with a series of concrete examples, it seems little of what was heard will stay in the memory.

Might this be a problem specific to our times? When you get in touch with people from ministries or local governments, or from the political sphere, the answer you often get is a string of phrases, quotations and references. As that kind of exchange goes on, you gradually begin to doubt the competence of the person you are talking to – almost anyone can read out quotations or repeat phrases if they can read.

When someone arrives with a prepared lecture and uses practical examples, the audience appreciates it. Explaining theory and practice together is best of all.

More than one topic to which we devote a single day is taught at universities or elsewhere over semesters or even years. We try, briefly and in concentrated form, to explain the practical solution or application of the question, topic or problem concerned, which someone who has listened to us today can try to do or use themselves tomorrow. Anyone can read the guidelines and regulations without our help.

Guidelines quite often need explaining too.

Of course! Those who draft regulatory documents, on hearing participants' questions, are often taken aback: “Do you really read it and understand it that way? It never occurred to us.”

I am convinced that educational work with the particular target audience is useful for the author of the “primary source” – for instance, giving lectures or taking part in similar events – because talking to the people to whom the documents they have drawn up apply is undoubtedly useful and will help in their further work.

Not everyone who wants and would like to be a lecturer can be one; practitioners, on the other hand, who know how to tell the story and know what they are talking about, are much in demand. They are welcome absolutely everywhere!

One topical subject is violence...

It is especially important for orphan's and custody court and social workers, teachers, as well as police officers and other state and local government specialists working with minors to understand this issue. Orphan's and custody court staff work with children and families, and they have to be able to spot problem situations in good time. At present violence as a lecture topic is included in programmes for many target groups.

The range of people we train is quite broad – local government staff, including social workers, orphan's and custody court staff, the administrations of educational institutions and local government employees, lawyers.

I would add that it is also possible to learn Latvian with us.

Though you do not teach that to local government staff...

No, of course not! The project we have become involved in is aimed at permanent residents registered in the city of Rīga (including non-citizens, Ukrainians and so on), who are offered these classes at levels A and B. Enrolment in the language courses is not merely formal, with, say, the first 60 people who apply starting their studies. Everyone who wants to learn the language sits a test so that we can assess their command of it. We divide the groups by level of knowledge. To consolidate their language skills, participants are offered additional opportunities – taking part in a conversation club. This gives people the chance to use Latvian by talking to each other about various topics and everyday situations.

The language question has to some extent caught many people unprepared and, as has unfortunately become usual in recent years, the blow or the shove, or the realisation, has come from outside – C19 ended, the war in Ukraine began and... “We have very serious problems with the language question”, in which, however bleak it may be, the biggest losers are ourselves, because it is our young people who from time to time find it hard to find work. The excuses offered for not knowing Latvian have sounded odd enough – for instance, that it was taught too little, that no one had encouraged it before, and so on.

Courses for learning Latvian have been provided for many years now, and free of charge at that. What did you have to do to make use of them? Apply and set aside time for the classes! At present interest in learning the language has risen sharply. As soon as the legislation changed in 2023, the autumn groups were already full by midsummer.

We try to make the language courses as meaningful as possible, with people of a similar level of knowledge in each group. If someone has no prior knowledge of the language, there is no point putting them in the same group as participants who can already communicate in Latvian, because that will not be good for either of them.

Older people are more likely to study in person, while those in work prefer to take up the chance to attend classes online. Previously, before the change in the law, it was more often young, interested and highly motivated people who had started working and wanted to learn Latvian. If one can use the word “record” – one person mastered the language to level C within a year (that person now lives in Ukraine and corresponds with us in Latvian). Motivation is crucial – not the regularly mentioned environment in which to practise, but mo-ti-va-tion.

Does the training centre also have international projects that you take part in or are involved in?

In the summer one of our projects in cooperation with the European Commission will come to an end, on questions connected with the internet – online safety, cybersecurity, cybercrime, internet addiction... Families at social risk, who are also internet users, and the risk that they can be drawn into various dubious offers online that they do not understand very well and against which they are less protected. As we hear often enough, frauds of this kind are still very much a live issue, so it is important to educate people about it – you can never have too much knowledge.

How topical are civil protection matters?

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, for the past two years we have been teaching civil protection matters to local government staff. You could say we held a two-day plein-air session – participants came with maps of their own municipalities and studied their own territory in particular, drew diagrams, analysed possible scenarios and risks, shared experience and so on. It was practical, absorbing work – the training was led by people who travel to Ukraine from time to time and see in practice how and in what way civil protection works, what questions have to be resolved and so on. They know the subject and are able to explain it in a well-grounded, comprehensible way, because they have the knowledge and have gained extensive practical experience.

Another topical civil protection issue in recent years – flooding.

Yes, we talk about flooding too. Last year's events in Jēkabpils showed in real terms how important the participation and involvement of a knowledgeable person is in resolving a crisis, someone who in that situation demonstrated both knowledge and the ability to pitch in. It is an excellent example!

It would be important here to recall that any question can be resolved not only in accordance with what it says on the nameplate by an official's office door, but by drawing on the knowledge and skills of the person working in that office. The main thing is that there should be the interest and the will to get every job done by working together – that is the founding principle of sustainability and positive communication!