Seimo-appointed expert council says it cannot communicate with Genocide Centre leadership
Vilnius – A parliamentary expert council says it has been unable to obtain cooperation or information from the leadership of the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre (LGGRTC), despite its mandate to guide the institution’s strategy and research priorities.
The Seimas-established External Council of the LGGRTC, composed of specialists from various fields, was formed in November 2024 for a five-year term. Its duties include approving research directions, long-term strategic and annual plans, setting annual performance targets for the centre’s director, and providing recommendations on governance and research implementation.
At a meeting of the Seimas Commission on Freedom Struggle and State Historical Memory this week, council chair Arūnas Streikus said the body has received no meaningful feedback from LGGRTC leadership, with documents and data often provided only days before formal approvals. “We have no reverse communication from the institution’s leadership,” Streikus said. “We don’t see a clear algorithm for how to proceed, because we don’t grasp their logic.”
Council member Algis Vyšniūnas echoed the concern, stating that even after a strategic session organised by the council in June 2025, the centre’s January 2026 strategic plan made no reference to the session’s conclusions or recommendations.
The council has formally raised its concerns with the Speaker of the Seimas, the National Security and Defence Committee, the Human Rights Committee, and the Commission on Freedom Struggle and State Historical Memory, citing systemic issues in the centre’s operations.
Lack of vision and unclear priorities
In a letter to parliamentary bodies, the council identified the absence of a clear strategic vision as a key problem. While the 2025–2027 strategic plan is overly detailed, it lacks strategic clarity, vision, and value-based foundation, according to the experts. They note that priorities are not clearly defined, links between stated goals and proposed measures are weak, and quality criteria for research output are not established.
The council also highlights unclear separation between research and administrative functions, an inefficient funding and planning model focused on staff status rather than results, weak internal communication, unclear performance and accountability standards, limited international and academic integration, and an unclear role in shaping national historical policy.
“We do not see the centre playing a more visible role in shaping state historical policy, even though this is one of its statutory tasks,” Streikus said. “Instead, it often appears to be fulfilling externally imposed tasks rather than acting as a policy shaper.”
The LGGRTC leadership has not publicly responded to the allegations, stating only that it would address the claims once the council presents its official report.