In the latest issue of Eesti Ekspress, there is an article by Ekvard Joakit the title of which mentions former Pirita District Elder Tõnis Liinat talking about a salary of €7,000 and a fancy company car he was looking at in 2022. From April 2019 to March of last year, Mihhail Kõlvart was the mayor of Tallinn.

The Ekspress story is based on wiretaps by the Internal Security Service (ISS) involving Tõnis Liinat, who has been convicted of a corruption-related crime. The article presents events episode by episode.

In one episode, then-Pirita District Elder Tõnis Liinat is speaking with the then-Secretary General of the Center Party Andre Hanimägi. They discuss who could become the head of Tallinn's Waste Recycling Center. Liinat describes how he spoke with Kalle Klandorf, the then-chairman of the company's supervisory board and leader of the Center Party's city council faction, about his desire for the position. He also mentions that then-Deputy Mayor of Tallinn Andrei Novikov was also interested in the job.

Liinat vividly describes how he wants a €7,000 salary and a nice company car. According to Ekspress, Klandorf essentially expressed his support for both politicians.

Mihhail Kõlvart, did Kalle Klandorf come to you and suggest that Liinat or Novikov should be helped into a leadership position at a city-owned company?

First of all, a very clear answer — no. No one has asked me, and if someone did talk to me about this topic, it did not lead to any outcome, as far as I know. In that sense, the headline is certainly attention-grabbing, but there is no real substance in this story. There would be something to discuss if these men had actually talked among themselves and then gotten something out of it, but that did not happen.

Moreover, I have to admit that the conversation itself is quite crude. When I read the article, it feels a bit like gossip — something along the lines of "women chatting in the sauna" — and now we are here trying to comment on it.

But they were still talking about their own interests. Later, there was also a conversation between Liinat and Novikov, and as I understand it, in that discussion, Novikov mentioned that he had spoken with you about his desire to become the head of the waste management center, but you did not allow it. According to Novikov's words, as reported by Ekspress, the reason you did not allow it was that at the time, you had no one to replace Novikov and Liinat. These were Novikov's words as conveyed by Ekspress. So, did they personally come to ask you about getting a leadership position at a city-owned company?

Look, what can actually be discussed with me is someone's departure from a position. But where a person wants to apply is their personal matter — it cannot be regulated by anyone. And just because someone applies for a position does not mean they will get it.

Of course, within a party or an organization, if someone has the desire to move elsewhere, it is normal for them to inform others that they intend to leave. But that does not mean they will automatically have an opportunity to get a new position. And once again, I want to emphasize that no such opportunity materialized for anyone.

The fact that Andrei Novikov became the head of [the municipal transport company] AS Tallinna Linnatransport (TLT) in the summer of 2022 and that the same Kalle Klandorf, whom we previously mentioned, became the head of [district heating provider] Tallinna Soojus — was this in no way connected to the fact that they were members of the Center Party?

There is a connection in the sense that they held political positions and had worked within the city system for more than 10 years. Naturally, this means they also had relevant experience.

Now, if we talk about Tallinna Soojus, it is a private company today, and for every position there, a standard competitive process is conducted. As for TLT, as far as I know, Novikov is still working there, meaning he has managed to perform well despite the change of administration. And of course, when someone has worked in a particular field for many years, they gain relevant competence.

However, that does not mean they are exempt from going through a selection process. The competition committee included not only city representatives but also representatives from the private sector, and the selection was based on their evaluations as well. People have the right to apply for positions, but that does not automatically mean they will be chosen.

Let's talk about another interesting episode, where the then-North Tallinn District Elder Manuela Pihlap and the same Tõnis Liinat discussed how their deputies were appointed. Pihlap complained that she was not allowed to choose her own deputy. More precisely, she said she initially hired a competent deputy, but because that person was not a member of the Center Party, she had to let them go and instead hire Pavel Boitsov, who, according to her, was not particularly capable. Tõnis Liinat also complained that he had been assigned Kalle Jõks as a deputy, whom he found to be of little help, and that another employee, Jekaterina Laidinen, was not competent in her work. These were Liinat's words. Both of them were wondering what considerations Kõlvart had in mind when assigning these people. Now, looking back, can you explain to your former colleagues what your reasoning was when Boitsov, Jõks and Laidinen were hired?

Actually, we are not discussing my decisions here; we are discussing what people privately talk about among themselves. I think there's nothing unusual about this — within any organization, people discuss things among themselves, and often, the way they do so is not particularly formal or correct.

At the same time, just because people say something does not necessarily mean it reflects reality. For some reason, I assume that even in your organization, people have private discussions. And when a conversation is private — since no one expects that later there will be an article about it — people allow themselves to express different thoughts.

So, just as my colleagues have said things about me behind my back, which are difficult for me to comment on, in the same way, I am not going to publicly discuss what my colleagues talk about in private.

Let's try to return to the question of how were deputy district elders and other employees appointed? From that conversation, I understand that they wanted to hire someone else, perhaps a specialist, as their deputy, but instead, Kõlvart was the one assigning them different people.

If you read the article and then requested an interview with me, you must have also looked into the details a little — specifically, that the people being discussed were already working in the district government. By the time the district elders came into their positions, these individuals were already part of the system. So, essentially, I don't quite understand what we are discussing here.

From that conversation, I understood that they wanted someone else to be in that position — perhaps a non-party specialist — but they couldn't hire them because it was considered a party-appointed position.

Let me repeat once again — I assumed that you had looked into the details of this matter. When district elders took office, they also had the ability to select their subordinates.

I will try to ask this as simply as possible. Did you or did you not direct who worked in district governments, for example, as deputy district elders or other officials? Did you play a role in appointing party members to such positions?

Yes, of course. Since the position of district elder is a political one, their deputies are also often political appointments or affiliated with the party.

Just look at the current city government and every advisor within it — not to mention the deputy district elders. They are all politicians. Yes, this practice exists and was the same during the Center Party's time in office.

Were the district elders able to choose them themselves or was it the mayor who appointed and decided?

I had a very clear rule — the leader is responsible for their subordinates and also for ensuring that their team consists of people they can work with effectively.

The third episode, in addition to Tõnis Liinat and Andrei Novikov, also involves Mihhail Korb, who was then a Center Party MP and a former secretary general of the party. Korb asked Liinat to call then-Deputy Mayor Novikov to inquire whether there was a chance that an apartment inherited by the city might not have a legal heir and what the starting price would be if it were put up for auction. Is this something that city and state officials should be spending their working hours on — discussing how to acquire taxpayer-owned property at the lowest possible price?

Again, I assumed that you had looked into this matter before our conversation. This is public information, and this conversation was not a work-related or professional discussion. It was two individuals discussing personal matters — this was a personal issue.

If someone wants to buy something, they have the opportunity to do so through the proper procedure, which in this case is a public auction. If an auction does not take place, then there is no way to proceed with such a purchase. And as far as I understood from the article, that is exactly what happened. This was public information, an open process, and anyone could have participated in it.

Could any ordinary person have called the Pirita district elder and asked them to call the deputy mayor to discuss what the starting price might be?

I can't say whether just anyone would have turned to Liinat for this. As we later found out, many different people approached him with various issues.

If I were to give a moral assessment, I would also say, "Come on, guys, handle your personal matters properly — don't try to go through acquaintances in the city system, just look up the information online like everyone else can."

But if I were to give a legal assessment, then there's nothing to discuss here.

I am not trying to determine what criticisms should or should not be directed at you as mayor. Rather, I am trying to understand whether the underlying cultural mindset reflected in this story — the general perception within the city government or among its employees at the time — blurred the lines between what was personal and what was public, between the role of a public servant and what falls outside of it. Looking back, do you find this entirely acceptable?

Let's start with this — if someone believes that public sector resources can be used for personal gain, there is a legal provision for that. Such actions should be punished, just as happened in Liinat's case. This is a very clear assessment: if someone thinks that what belongs to the city, what belongs to the people of Tallinn, can be used for personal interests, then they should simply be held accountable. That judgment is made by the court.

And if someone works in the city system primarily to pursue their personal interests, then I certainly would not want to work with such people.

However, the fact that people discuss among themselves the possibility of getting another position, a higher salary or other opportunities — I don't believe there are many people, including in politics, who never think about their own interests. Recent events in politics illustrate this very well.

Politicians are also people who consider which party offers the best position on the list, which party can secure them a ministerial portfolio or a board seat in a municipal company. Over the past six months, we have regularly seen how city council members and municipal politicians are lured away in exchange for positions — seats on supervisory boards worth €300-400 euros per month.

Maybe it's time to start giving out some kind of recognition? So that politicians in every party who actually consider public interests could receive some sort of ribbon or badge?

Since you're discussing this with me, I can only share what I personally think. And I will say that I have no interest in being in politics just to secure a salary for myself.

I know that if I decide that politics no longer interests me, I can find a job in the private sector. I don't need to switch parties or negotiate with a party by offering my vote in the city council or parliament. I don't need a ministerial position in exchange for betraying someone. That is my understanding of politics and political culture.

Whether everyone shares this view, I cannot answer for that — not even within my own party.

Frankly, I find today's discussion rather odd. If we were discussing a case where people talked about getting something and actually got it, then there would be something to debate. And especially if I had personally gained something from it — then it would absolutely be fair to question me about it.

Let's wrap up with the cherry on top — where someone actually did receive something. Kalle Klandorf's daughter had a problem — she needed some earthworks done in her yard. And Tõnis Liinat, the helpful district elder, stepped in to assist. Earthworks were carried out in Kalle Klandorf's daughter's yard using city funds. As far as I understand from discussions in court, at one point there was even some confusion about where exactly the work was supposed to be done and then Klandorf provided his daughter's phone number for clarification. Is this appropriate?

No, it is not. This is one hundred percent wrong. If it happened as described, then, as I have already said, there must be consequences.

I am not familiar with the details, but I did talk to Kalle about it. He told me that there was no personal interest involved and that, in fact, the work was done on city property in front of the house.

However, if it were otherwise, this would not just be a matter of moral judgment — there should be direct consequences because this is simply not right, and frankly, it's quite disgraceful. If someone says, "Bring me soil using city funds," especially when dealing with people who can afford to pay for it themselves, that is extremely inappropriate, petty and just outright shady.

I understood that Liinat was punished for this.

I have to admit that I am not very familiar with the details of this court case. I don't know exactly what he was punished for, nor have I looked into who discussed what among themselves.

But I will repeat once again — I am answering your questions very clearly and I will give a clear answer to this one as well. If it happened as you describe or as Eesti Ekspress reports, then I do not tolerate it.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!