Posted on

Jovana Marović’s lecture

On Monday, April 8, 2013th, Jovana Marović held a lecture in the framework of the Public Policy School. She presented two topics:

– “The role of think tanks in public policy”

– “The role of Government and non-governmental actors in policy-making at EU level”

The topic (keywords):

Think Tank (definition, history, classification, activity), Policy cycle, Framework for think tank organization activities in Montenegro, decision-making procedures in the EU acquis, lobbying, interest groups in Brussels, democratic deficit.

Two-hour lecture was held at the PR Center in Podgorica.

Brief biography:

Jovana Marovic got her PhD at the Department of International and European Studies at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, with the dissertation “The structural problems of democracy in the EU political system.” At the same university got her master’s degree on theses: “EU Citizenship ” and “European Parliament”.

She dedicated almost the entire professional career to studying the European integration process, whether in lecturing, research or professional calling. She was the EU advisor at the Ministry’s of Foreign Affairs multilateral sector (2004-2007); Advisor for International Cooperation and European Integration at the President’s of the Budva Municipality Office (2007-2008). Since 2010 has been employed at the Institute alternative, first as a Senior Associate in the research, and then as a Research coordinator.

She has successfully completed several specialized diplomatic programs, including Diplomatic Academy “Gavro Vukovic” in organization both Faculty of Law in Podgorica and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since March 2012 she has been a member of the Government’s negotiating work group for Chapter XXIII – Judiciary and fundamental rights – in preparation for the Montenegro accession to the European Union.

The Public Policy school project is supported by the Commission for the allocation of gambling revenue and managed by the Institute alternative in collaboration with the Centre for Research and Monitoring (CEMI).

Posted on

Press release: Favoritism of political party donors in public procurements must be prevented

The Law on Political Parties Financing needs to be enhanced with the precise and detailed provisions which would prevent favoritism of parties’ donors who are during public procurement procedures.

Improvement of abovementioned provisions of the Law on Political Parties Financing is even of higher priority if we bear in mind that potential connection between public procurement procedures and political parties financing is emphasized by the European Union as a prerequisite for an effective fight against corruption, upon which Montenegro’s progress in membership talks with the EU depends.

The current Law prohibits parties to receive donations from legal entities and entrepreneurs and with them related persons who concluded procurement contract, in a period of two years before and from conclusion of the contract, as well as for the period of duration of the business relationship. Yet, there are numerous deficiencies of such provision. The “prohibition period” of two years after signing the contract is short because it coincides with only half of the Government’s full term, and leaves room for corruption in the second half of the regular mandate of the executive power. The Law on Public Procurement should thus also incorporate provision, which would specify that it is necessary to reject the bid of a legal entity which granted donations to a political party for a period of two years prior to the commencement of the procurement procedure. Only in this manner, the provision forbidding donations in a two-year period before concluding a public procurement procedure would be meaningful.

Furthermore, the Law envisages a fine from 10,000 to 20,000 euro for a political party which received the donors’ support in non-allowed conditions, but not for the legal entity or a person who made illicit donation. Hence, those persons should also be penalized. When it comes to the political parties financing and public procurement, it is important to note that the State Electoral Commission and the State Audit Institution have limited capacities to exercise oversight of the Law on Political Parties Financing. The Public Procurement Directorate should thus regularly update the list of bidders or legal entities which have concluded public procurement contracts by dates of bidding invitation in order to ensure the professional behavior of the SAI while auditing financial reports of political parties and report on the financing of political parties.

Jovana Marović
Research Coordinator

Posted on

Interview: Anticorruption legal framework must be consolidated

Interview with our research coordinator, Jovana Marović, for MINA news agency:

What, in your opinion, are the main flaws of the Montenegrin legislation when it comes to the fight against corruption?

In the European Commission’s opinion general framework for the fight against corruption in Montenegro has been established, but the legislation shows many shortcomings, while this legislation implementation is not efficient. The assessment of the general framework established for the fight against corruption is not entirely correct. It remains unclear why the public-private partnerships are not within the context of negotiations on Chapter 23, and the overall fight against corruption. It is also questionable why the definition of this framework is not in the Government Work plan for 2013 year, and what are the specific results of the previous two years work to creating a common legal framework for PPPs and concessions. The same remark applies to the Law on Concessions harmonization with relevant EU legislation, since the EC’s Montenegro Progress Report for 2012 underlined the need for harmonization. Precisely because of this law shortcomings, the imprecisely set institutional arrangements and overlapping responsibilities, as well as inadequate billing systems in concessions, concessionaires only in 2012 on behalf of arrears owed 12 million euro. In the absence of adequate legal, institutional and supervisory framework for PPPs and concessions, chances for corruption remain high.

When you take into account which legislation EC characterized as a good basis for the subject area regulation, as is the case with the Law on Public Procurement, besides the problem of inadequate actions control, the law is not fully in line with the acquis (eg shopping method regulation), nor has it adequately responded to the need for improving the anti-corruption policies and mechanisms. There is also an absence of institutional mechanism for monitoring and follow- up of defined anti-corruption norms and rules implementation (eg provision which prohibits the employment of persons involved in the procurement process for a two years period for a legal entity – the bidder who has signed a contract on Public Procurement).

It is necessary to change the Criminal Code provisions in part related to the precise definition of the offense of bribery, as well as the criminalization of undue influence on the judiciary.

With the need to eliminate the shortcomings of the anti-corruption legal framework, only the continuous implementation of regulations with adequate implementation control, can make fight against corruption more effective.

Do you think that, in order to effectively fight against corruption should start the procedure for the Law on the origin of the assets adoption, and opening of collaborators of the secret services files?

Initiative for adopting the Law on the origin of the assets exists in the region (for example, in Serbia currently are in the focus current activities concerning law preparation). The arguments most often heard in the direction of its approval are based on the need to fight against the so-called “Lateral corruption”, that would measure unjust enrichment of public official’s relatives, and that this law would be a significant contribution to the overall fight against corruption. However, regardless of some results that might come from the Law on origin of the property implementation, the experience of countries where this law was in effect are not positive. Thus, for example, in the Slovak Law on sources of assets 2005, concerning those who can’t prove the property origin, was in effect only for a month. The Act provisions had launched a huge number of cases and requests for verification of assets, which almost paralyzed the system.

What, in your opinion, should be the punishment for corruption when it comes to public officials?

Effective penalization for abuse of office by public officials can be achieved by the Article 45 of the Law on Offences implementation which specifies that “the offender shall not engage in occupation, activity or duty performed on a competent authority’s subscription or permission basis.”

The report on the screening of legislative alignment in Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights), the EC stresses that the Law on conflict of interest does not define adequate disclosure of public officials assets because it doesn’t check the content of applications in order to identify cases of illicit enrichment, and the criminal penalties provided in this Act are not sufficiently preventive. Therefore, in the direction of better criminal law regulation, provisions should specify the maximum penalties that exist in the European Union.

Do you think that the law should provide that acts of corruption and organized crime never expire?

The provisions prescribing that acts of corruption and organized crime are not becoming obsolete are necessary to incorporate at the Montenegrin legal framework. This would be good way to monitor practices in the region (Croatia, for example, in 2010 with Constitutional amendments resolved this issue). Offences of corruption and organized crime are difficult to prove, the provisions prescribing this offences never to expire, would be a positive step in their clarification.

Should the law regulate the seizure of illegally acquired property to apply retroactively?

The principle of retroactivity is not legal. The laws apply from the moment of coming into force. Retroactivity may affect the (in) security of the legal system and uncertainty among citizens.

Jovana Marović
Research Coordinator

Posted on

II module of the 2013 Public Policy School

The second module of the Public Policy school was held on March 30 and 31, 2013. Program has been continued with theme: “Evaluation of Public Policies”, presented by Professor Snezana Djordjevic, from the Belgrade’s Faculty of Political Sciences.

On the topic (keywords):

The process of public policy monitoring and evaluation: cost-benefit analysis (cost-benefit) analysis of cost-effectiveness (cost- effectiveness); phenomenon of multiple advocacy, methods and techniques for policy recommendations, policy monitoring results, practical synthesis of research and monitoring techniques; approaches, criteria, and techniques of evaluation (evaluation) forms of the policy argumentation; benchmarking system (measuring instruments and methods of monitoring the quality and operation of local authorities in all areas of the follow-up effects).

The module is realized as a two-day seminar with interactive workshops in PR center in Podgorica.

The Public Policy school project is supported by the Commission for the allocation of gambling revenue and managed by the Institute alternative in collaboration with the Centre for Research and Monitoring (CEMI).

Snezana Djordjevic since 2008, the Professor at Belgrade’s Faculty of Political Sciences and lecturer on classes: local government and public policy (undergraduate); public services, local economic development and public policy (postgraduate). At the same faculty got her PhD in year 1997.

The author of numerous books, monographs, articles in proceedings, studies, articles in journals, including: “Contemporary urban theory – the entrepreneurial, creative, democratic cities”, “Policy Analysis”, “Handbook of Local Economic Development,” ” Government in action – the world of public service “,” Local Government “,” The renaissance of local government – comparative models “,” The reform of local Ombudsmen’s work in Serbia “,” Manual for the citizens and civil society involvement in the decision-making process “,” Decentralization dictionary ” etc..

She is a former Fulbright scholar grants (Fulbright grant) for the six-month research project on “Public Services” at the Maxwell School, Campbell Institute, Syracuse, New York, 2002-2003. She is a member of the Political Science Association Serbia.

 

Posted on

Law on Parliamentary Oversight of Security and Defense Sector – Second Year of Implementation

The Law on Parliamentary Oversight of Defense and Security Sector was unanimously adopted by the Parliament of Montenegro in December 2010, after nearly three years since the conception of idea of the need for its adoption. The basic objective of the Law was to enable the Parliament of Montenegro, directly through the Committee for Defense and Security conducting the oversight of authorities in charge of security and defense, to ensure the protection of citizens’ freedoms and rights against possible abuse, as well as to contribute to the development of a comprehensive and modern security system of Montenegro. The Law specifies the manner of conducting parliamentary oversight of actions of authorities and institutions dealing with the security and defense issues, their duties, as well as the relationship of the Committee for Defense and Security to the Parliament and Government of Montenegro.

Institute Alternative has contributed in the development of this Law, primarily by advocating the necessity of its adoption, and then also by cooperating with the competent working group in the course of drafting the legal text. Following the adoption of the Law in the Parliament, in December 2010, we have organized a round table and we announced that we will continue to monitor the implementation of this important Law, in order to strengthen and maintain its spirit and motives that lay behind its adoption.

In December 2011, we marked the first year of implementation of this Law and presented our Report on the work of the Parliament and the Committee for Security and Defense in fulfilling its provisions. On this occasion, we concluded that:

“Adoption of the Law, to a certain extent, has triggered both the proactive and the more efficient work of the Committee, although it stills suffers from the insufficient use of the available oversight mechanisms and uncertainty of conducted parliamentary oversight’s impact.”

The year addressed by this Report was featured by the parliamentary elections. In July, the Parliament adopted the decision on shortening its term, and the elections were held in October, and in November a new, 25th convocation has been constituted. Elections and associated events have influenced the work dynamics of the Committee for security and defense, resulting in failure to address a large part of planned commitments.

The Report before you is a review of the activities of the Parliament and the Committee, in reference to the oversight over security and defense sector. The structure of the report, to the greatest extent, relies on areas that we have addressed in our last year’s report and at that time established methodology. Recommendations for improvement have been provided at the end of the Report, which we will address to the members of the Committee for Security and Defense, and other participants in the oversight process over this sector.