[2026 Parliamentary Audit] 3 of 5 Replaced Within Two Weeks... National Heritage Administration's Grade 4 Promotions 'Come Under Fire'

Secretary ranked 34th in performance and multisource assessments among 56 promotion candidates, prompting internal backlash
Promoted to Grade 4 just five years after reaching Grade 5... statutory minimum of three years met
Lawmakers Cho Eunhee and Bae Hyunjin question promotion process and change in review committee chair
Administrator Heo Min: "I did not intervene in the promotions at all... Reversing the decision was wrong"

The National Heritage Administration came under fire during a parliamentary audit after replacing three of five Grade 4 promotion candidates less than two weeks after announcing the selections. In the initial round, the current and former secretaries to Administrator Heo Min were included among the candidates, but both were removed in a re-review after staff members objected, sparking controversy over the standards and procedures for promotions. Heo denied allegations that he had intervened to grant them preferential treatment, but apologized for reversing the decision, saying, "I was wrong."

Yonhap News Agency

At the National Assembly’s Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee audit of the National Heritage Administration on October 8, People Power Party lawmakers Cho Eunhee and Bae Hyunjin repeatedly questioned how the current and former administrators’ secretaries had been included among the promotion candidates and then removed after staff objections, as well as how the chair of the Grade 4 promotion review committee was appointed.

On August 28, the National Heritage Administration selected five people for promotion from among 56 candidates for Grade 4 promotion and announced the decision internally. According to Cho, the selected candidates included Heo’s former secretary, who ranked 34th in performance and multisource assessments, and an official who was then head of the personnel team and is now Heo’s secretary.

Cho particularly questioned the former secretary’s promotion to Grade 4 about five years after being promoted to Grade 5. She argued that it was an unusual appointment, given that it typically takes around 10 years to advance from Grade 5 to Grade 4 at the National Heritage Administration.

However, promotion after just five years does not in itself violate the statutory requirements. Under the current Public Officials Appointment Decree, the minimum required period of service for a Grade 5 general-service civil servant to be promoted to Grade 4 is three years. Nor does a ranking of 34th in performance and multisource assessments alone determine whether someone is promoted. Promotion reviews take into account work performance and the promotion candidate list, as well as years of service, career assignments, job capabilities and other aspects.

The issue was that the initial appointments prompted strong opposition within the organization. Cho said that 27 posts related to the matter appeared on the internal bulletin board in the week after the promotion list was announced, drawing more than 21,000 views.

In the end, the National Heritage Administration convened another personnel committee less than two weeks after the initial review. Following the re-review, three of the five original promotees were replaced, and both of Heo’s current and former secretaries, who had been at the center of the controversy, were removed from the promotion list.

Cho said that the Senior Secretary for Civil Affairs’ office had conducted an inspection on September 2 and asked whether it was related to the re-review. Heo rejected the suggestion, saying, "It had nothing to do with the inspection." The issue of the promotion review committee chair also became a point of contention.

Cho and Bae questioned the appropriateness of the process by which the administrator, rather than the deputy administrator as before, came to chair the Grade 4 promotion review committee, and how much Heo had been involved in the appointments.

"I did not intervene at all," Heo replied.

The National Heritage Administration’s personnel management regulations stipulate that the administrator chairs promotion review committees for promotions to Grade 4 or higher. The former Cultural Heritage Administration’s regulations likewise designated the administrator as committee chair. The National Heritage Administration had previously explained the controversy by saying that the system had been changed for a time so that the deputy administrator chaired the committee instead of the administrator, before being returned to its original arrangement.

Asked why he had reversed the appointments, Heo said, "My way of thinking differed from that of the staff." He added, "I thought that selecting good division chiefs would allow the younger staff below them to see a future here and move forward, but it seems that was not the case."

When Cho pressed him, asking, "If the initial appointments were justified, why were they reversed? And if the reversal was justified, who is responsible for the initial appointments?" Heo replied, "I would like to say that I regret it and am sorry." He also said of his decision to reverse the appointments, "I would say that I was wrong in that regard."

Bae also questioned how Heo’s current and former secretaries had been included in the initial promotion list and then removed after internal opposition, as well as whether the promotion review process was appropriate. Heo said that there was a difference between his own judgment and staff members’ perceptions, and said he would apologize to the staff and improve the personnel system.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.