Posted on

Investigating the “Telecom Affair” in the Parliament – unrealistic expectations and realistic limitations

Today we presented the findings of our latest analysis, entitled “Investigating the “Telekom Affair” in the Parliament – unrealistic expectations and realistic limitations.” The analysis was supported by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES).

The goal of this analysis is to answer the following question – which obstacles did the Inquiry Committee face in carrying out the parliamentary inquiry. The subject of this analysis were the circumstances in which the parliamentary inquiry was launched, the role of other actors involved in shedding light on the relevant issues, problems in the implementation of control mechanisms, as well as the political context in which the parliamentary inquiry was conducted.

At the press conference speakers were Dina Bajramspahić, the author of analysis and Jovana Marovic, research coordinator in Institute Alternative.

Conclusions and recommendations from the analysis are presented in the remainder of the article:

Parliamentary inquiry is one of the most important control mechanisms that the Parliament has at its disposal when controlling the work of the government, state bodies and institutions. It is therefore necessary to continuously strengthen and enhance its internal mechanisms in order to allow it to objectively determine political accountability of state officials. That is, after all, in the interest of the government itself, because, in parallel with the strengthening of the Parliament’s control function, the quality of the government’s work and the principle of responsibility of its officials and servants will necessarily rise.

Because of that, the Parliament and the government must undertake a series of activities with an aim of enhancing the parliamentary inquiry.

1) As regards strengthening of competences:

It is necessary to add penal provisions for failure to respond to the invitation of the Inquiry Committee, failure to deliver information or false testifying.
By amending the Law on Parliamentary Inquiry, it is necessary to create a legal basis for summoning citizens to testify before the Inquiry Committee, and to allow for the delivery of information and documents from those citizens who are in possession of data which could shed light on the subject matter.
2) As regards enhancing procedures:

By amending the Law on Parliamentary Inquiry, it is necessary to:

enable proportional participation of the opposition in decision-making as regards taking statements, in order to ensure a minimal pass rate of the opposition proposals for summoning individuals.
prescribe as obligatory for the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee, in communication with the Committee members, to prepare a report to be discussed by the Inquiry Committee. Should there be no majority for the adoption of the report, a technical report will be adopted.
prescribe a technical procedure for conducting hearings, in a way that the Committee members would be allowed two rounds of question-asking, with a possibility of commenting on answers of the individuals summoned for a hearing.
3) As regards raising awareness about the legitimacy of parliamentary inquiry:

Both the Parliament and the Government, ruling majority and opposition, must promote the parliamentary inquiry, indicate the importance and significance of this control mechanism, and create environment in which the application of this control mechanism will be a constructive, democratic attempt to solve a social problem, on the basis of arguments and facts, and not a malicious attempt to decide on criminal responsibility outside the judicial proceeding.
4) As regards financial support to the work of Inquiry Committee:

It is necessary that a special programme dedicated to the improvement of the control function be incorporated into the budget of the Parliament of Montenegro, which would, inter alia, foresee expenses needed for the smooth work of inquiry committees.
5) As regards enhancing transparency:

All documents about the work of the Inquiry Committee (minutes, reports, decisions, statements given by summoned individuals) should be published on the Parliament’s website.
Bearing in mind the importance of parliamentary inquiry, the Parliament and the Government need to take a number of actions to improve it.

The analysis “Investigating the “Telekom Affair” in the Parliament – unrealistic expectations and realistic limitations” can be downloaded here.

Posted on

(Un)real Expectations

Stevo MukBy the letter of the Constitution, The Government of Montenegro is in charge of conducting domestic and foreign policy. Non-governmental organizations have an implied obligation to communicate and cooperate with the Government. The Government has a written obligation to cooperate with non-governmental organizations. Especially non-governmental organizations which analize public policy and offer solutions, by definition, must cooperate with public institutions. Recommendations and proposals are sent to decision makers. In the first place, to the Government and to the Parliament. The Government would have to cooperate not just with those who give positive opinions about its work, but even more with those who complain and express criticism, and mostly with those who give suggestions and solutions.

At the time when the Prime Minister was Igor Luksic, a positive climate prevailed in relation with non-governmental organizations. It would be important that the new Government clearly says that it will not make a single step back from what was the attitude of the previous Government related to the NGOs. This implies further consistent implementation of the Regulation on the Procedure for Cooperation of Government Agencies and Non-governmental Organizations and the Regulation on the Procedure of Conducting Public Hearings.

It is particularly important that the new Government is consistent and dedicated to implement the new Law on Access to Information.

In terms of control of public money spending, it is necessary to radically change the culture of accountability. Instead of the absence of any form of responsibility, from disciplinary, to criminal over to the political responsibility, it is necessary to establish accountability and discipline at all levels. Instead of considering the law violation as the prerequisite for advancement, it must be treated as the cause of permanent restrictions of state affairs.

The new Prime Minister would, therefore, have to scroll through previous SAI reports and see who of his staff, and the coalition parties did not meet. To those people we must thank but certainly do not take into account the new functions. It is necessary to ensure the full implementation of the recommendations of the State Audit Institution, and the Government has a responsibility to establish a functional system of internal financial control. Imperative for all institutions must be more rational planning of public procurement, the timely implementation of public procurement procedures and control of the contracts. All contracts and reports on the execution of contracts must be made public.

The Government should give up its influence over the State Commission for Control of Public Procurement and ensure its full legal and financial independence.

If the Montenegrin Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on Local Self-Government, which stipulated that all contracts for local government must be published on the Internet, there is no reason that the same is not prescribed for state administration and other budget consumers.

It is necessary to ensure effective coordination and full implementation of Public Administration Reform Strategy. This will be impossible unless clientelism and political corruption overwhelm public interest, if the coalition agreements win the establishment of the system of recruitment and promotion in the civil service based on merit system. It will not be good if you plan to postpone rationalization of public administration for the sake of new ministerial chair and apprenticeship and jobs for party activists.

The fight against corruption and organized crime must begin with clear and convincing information on the status of investigations in all cases and affairs that have been launched in recent years. In that sense, the real revolution was a compromise between the Government and the opposition, and between the heads of the police and prosecution. Police and prosecutorial jobs are such that they don’t constitute a separate policy paper, but a specific and unequivocal action. If the declared goal of the majority and the minority is the same – determined fight against corruption and organized crime – then there is a room for an agreement regarding the first people of the police and prosecution.

More than anything, it would be good if the new Government continued the old “war” against the “opposition” NGOs and the media but using different means, such as: transparency, persuasive argument and public involvement in the decision-making process at the earliest stages.

Regardless of our experiences, opinions and views on the DPS and Djukanovic, this and every other Government, by the good old custom, should wish a good luck and give hundred days in order to confirm or deny the expectations of its believers and skeptics. IA’s recommendations are contained in the studies that we have published during the past few years, and some (un)real expectations are presented in this column.

Stevo Muk
President of the Managing Board

Posted on

Workshop: Media reporting on the work of the State Audit Institution

With the support of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Institute Alternative held a workshop on “Reporting on the work of the State Audit Institution”. The workshop was as an opportunity for exchanging views on ways to achieve better and more effective cooperation between the SAI and the media and civil society.

The workshop was opened by Stevo Muk, President of the Managing Board and Mr. Miroslav Ivanisevic, President of the Senate of SAI. Speakers were Branislav Radulovic, PhD and a member of the Senate of the SAI and Jadranka Rabrenović, editor of the economic section of the daily newsapapers “Dan”.

The participants were representatives of the media interested in issues of control of the budget and government auditing.

The aim of the workshop was to reach a better understanding of the SAI’s work, exchange of views and experiences in the use of the audit report. The intention of the Institute was to promote this event through dialogue between the SAI and the media, to highlight potential problems in their cooperation, as well as possible ways of solving them in the future, i.e mechanisms to achieve better cooperation.

Posted on

Parliament and Civil Society Organizations – Partners in the Budget Control

Announcing the 2012 budget proposal discussions, the Speaker of the Parliament has expressed his belief that the “best budget consideration in the region will be conducted”. However, although it is true that a significant progress has been made during 24th convocation in reference to the work of the Parliament in general, the exercise of influence to the budget cycle was far below the satisfactory level, being neither competitive to the regional experience nor compliant with the best practice.

The objective of this research paper is to indicate directions of developing the participation of both the Parliament and the CSOs in the entire budget cycle. Through the review of the national legal framework and practice, comparative overview of the best practices, discussions with the key stakeholders and questionnaires, Institute Alternative (IA) endeavored in obtaining the most objective status of play of the parliamentary budget control and the CSOs’ participation in this process.

The term political or parliamentary budget control has been used in its broadest sense, referring to the overall participation of the Parliament in the process of the budget preparation, adoption, execution and evaluation. The paper is structured in a manner to follow the main stages of the budget cycle: i) budget preparation and formulation; ii) budget adoption; iii) budget execution; and iv) control and audit. At the end of the report, provided are the concrete recommendations for the further directions of development that could facilitate the strengthening the parliamentary control of the budget and budget transparency.

Posted on

Statement: the SAI and Determining Responsibility

Questions of Mina Business:

For years, the SAI publishes reports that show numerous irregularities in the work of public officials. Nothing is specifically done about it and everything remains on the constatation of irregularities. What is your comment?

What procedure should be established to make those who do not respect the people’s money and do not spend it rationally to suffer the consequences?

What is the practice in other countries, could such things there pass unpunished?

What is the SAI’s position and jurisdiction, could the SAI press charges againt those who work against the law?

If the SAI can press charges, why is that, in your opinion, has never been done?

Marko Sošić, Public Policy Researcher in Institute Alternative replies:

The SAI reports testify the numerous irregularities and improprieties in the management of public funds and property. In this light, it’s concerning the fact that the actors in the system of public finances haven’t initiated appropriate action within its jurisdiction, which would lead to the establishment of civil and criminal liability or would determine the level of damage to the state property. This practice contributes to the development of irresponsibility of competent managers as well as of civil servants.

It seems that, after seven years of work, is the time for the SAI recommendations to go beyond ordering to respect adopted laws. Here we need to be persistent in order to punish “offenders”. For this to occur, however, it is necessary to regulate the levels of accountability in public finances, especially when it comes to the misdemeanor and criminal liability.

It should be noted, of course, that the SAI can not do all alone and all expectations for achieving accountability in public finances should not be transferred only to that institution.

It should be recalled that the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates the obligation to report criminal acts by all public bodies (as well as the local government, public enterprises and institutions). Therefore, strong criticism should be directed to other actors in the system of public finance that need to monitor the work of the SAI with special attention, and if they believe that the allegations in the report indicate the crime, initiate necessary action. Here, first of all we think about the State Prosecutor’s Office, but also about the Police Directorate, the Commission for Public Procurement, Directorate for Anti-corruption initiative, Tax Administration, Directorate for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, and others… SAI Reports should serve to the numerous actors as an indicator and the starting point for launching their own checks and possible criminal charges and other actions.

Therefore, the criticism of the SAI for failurse to press charges is only partially in place – because the same responsibility is shared by the prosecution and the police, and by other stakeholders.

No less important is that sanctions in the area of public financial management are not adequately regulated by law nor applied in practice, and therefore many of the acts that really do not have the character of the offense itself but represent a disturbing practice, are not properly sanctioned.

Besides the misdemenear and disciplinary responsibility persistently is absent political responsibility. We should not forget that by ignoring the SAI recommendations, the Government actually expresses disrespect to the Parliament of Montenegro, which adopted those recommendations last year as its conclusions. Therefore, our recommendation was that the Prime Minister at the next session of the Ministers requires information on the allegations in the report and the SAI to take a position of responsibility for irregularities in the work of its officials. We demand that the Government informs the public why it fails tp obey the SAI recommendations and whether it was behind the illegal activities of their officials and civil servants. We believe that the Minister of Finance must participate in the work of the competent committee when the annual audit report on financial account of the budget is a part of the session’s agenda, which wasn’t the case last year. Minister on this occasion must explain the reasons for non-compliance with the SAI recommendations and Parliament resolutions.