Milena Milosevic, our researcher, spent one month at the German Council on Foreign relations (DGAP) within the programme financed by the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB).
During her stay at the headquarters of this prestigious organization in Berlin in the period May 15 – June 15, Milena worked at the research of public administration reform, one of the main research areas of Institute Alternative (IA).
With an aim of familiarizing herself with the functioning of public administration in the member states of the European Union (EU) and conditions which candidates for the EU membership have to fulfill in the field, Milena visited Federal Ministry of Interior as well as the most prominent education institutions in the area of good governance and political science, such as Hertie School of Governance and Freie University.
Our representative also took opportunity to get more acquainted with the work of civil sector in Germany, especially with the branches of the most known international non-profit organizations such as Transparency International and Reporters Without Borders.
Together with the colleagues from DGAP, Milena held a presentation to the students of the Freie University about challenges in ensuring the rule of law in Montenegro and key criteria of the EU. She has also participated at the conference “EU10X10 – Enlarged Horizons of Europe”, organized by the European Movement in Germany to mark the 10th anniversary of the so-called “big bang” EU enlargement in cooperation with the embassies of the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004.
During her stay in Berlin, Milena participated at the TRAIN seminar, which, run by the DGAP, has gathered 10 more representatives from the Western Balkan civil society organizations.
TRAIN, as a programme of professional training of young public policy researchers from the region, is being organized from 2011. Only from this year, the representatives of the two organizations got the opportunity to spend one month at the DGAP and conduct additional research in the area of their interest.
Since the IA has been dedicated to the professional training of its employees and to the building of its research capacities from its very establishment, we are proud we had been part of this significant exchange of experience.
Institute Alternative has submitted suggestions for the amendment of the Law on the system of public internal financial controls (PIFC) and presented them today to the MPs in the parliamentary Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget, at the invitation of the Committee’s Chair. We advocate for strengthening the independence of the internal auditors, introducing penal provisions for violations of the law and the “opening up” of data on the state of the PIFC system to the MPs, state auditors and the public.
The key thing we are fighting for is to make the annual consolidated report on PIFC available to the public and submitted to the Parliament and the StateAudit Institution. This is the key document that can shed light into the actual scope and results of efforts in introducing the system of internal financial controls in the Montenegrin public sector.
The way things currently stand, this report is neither delivered to the Parliament or state auditors, nor is it made public. This means that MPs have no insight into the number of conducted audits, number of recommendations that were issued versus the percentage of their fulfillment, nor can they find out what were the problems and irregularities that the internal auditors observed.
This is not in line with the best practices advocated by the European Commission, which recommends that the consolidated report should be regularly submitted to the Parliament. The goal is to improve the parliamentary oversight of risk and control processes that are present in the management in the public sector.
Institute Alternative appealed to the Administrative Court against the decision of the Ministry of Finance to declare this document to be confidential. In April 2013, the Administrative Court has ruled in our favour and overturned the decision of the Ministry, claiming that there was no basis in the Law on Data Confidentiality to make the PIFC report classified. However, until this day, the Ministry of Finance has not acted in accordance with the ruling of the Administrative Court — has not issued a new decision or made the report public.
We call upon the MPs in the Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget to amend the Law on PIFC and fight for being better informed and gaining an insight into valuable information on the work of internal audit in the public sector.
We invite young professionals who have completed masters or doctoral studies in social sciences in OECD countries (preferably within the last three years) to apply for a six-month paid work placement opportunity at Institute Alternative. During this period they are expected to engage in ongoing research projects and develop concrete policy products, mentored by our research coordinator.
This opportunity is provided in the framework of the Think Tank Fund’s Young Professional Development Program, which aims at providing young people who have just completed their studies in social sciences abroad with the chance to gain experience working in renowned research centers in the countries of their origin.
There are 26 think tanks interested to host young professionals in the framework of the TTF Young Professional Development Program (among which is IA). Young professionals can choose from this list of 26 host organizations and TTF will, after evaluating their applications, financially support up to 15 “returnees”.
If you fulfill the requirements listed in the Call for Applications and are interested in working with us, please contact us at: info@institut-alternativa.org, in order to discuss potential research topic.
Please note that only short-listed candidates will be invited for an interview. The selected candidate will, with our help, prepare the application for the TTF.
The deadline for submission of applications to the TTF is August 4, 2014, while the individual programs at hosting organizations will start from November 2014.
– or, ahead of the public discussion on the Law on Special Prosecution –
Although the fight against corruption and organized crime is one of the most frequently used phrases in the Montenegrin public discourse, European Commission’s 2013 Montenegro Progress Report continues to express serious concerns for the situation in this area. Isolated cases of arrests as a result of work of the Special Prosecutor’s Office do not create an impression of uncompromising determination of the state for everyone in Montenegro to be equally responsible before the law. The idea of reorganization and establishment of the independent Special Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime came from Miroslav Lajčak, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia. This proposal was endorsed by the Government of Montenegro, which announced its plan to establish the Special Prosecutor’s Office modeled by the Croatian Uskok.
The Government’s Analysis of the Organizational Structure, Capacities and Authorities of the State Bodies and Administration Bodies in Combating Organized Crime and Corruption was supposed to provide context for the generally adopted decision for the formation of the Special Prosecutor’s Office by pointing out to the problems in the work of the current Special Prosecutor’s Office. However, the aforementioned problems were not presented in the published Analysis. This will remain one of the stumbling blocks for any reform of the SPO, because without understanding the problem an adequate solution cannot be found. According to the Plan for realization of conclusions from the Analysis, the public debate on the Draft Law on the Special Prosecutor’s Office shall be conducted in June 2014.
Following the indicators of the need for further reform of the institutional framework for investigations of corruption and organized crime in Montenegro, the research team of Institute Alternative (IA) has published a comparative study aimed at providing alternatives and models for improving cooperation and efficiency of all stakeholders, especially the Prosecution and the Police, in January 2014. We analyzed and indicated to the problems and lessons learned from five countries’ institutional frameworks: Bulgaria, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, and Serbia, bearing in mind that these countries face the same problems and are at different levels of reform of the system. The project was supported by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) of the State Department through the Embassy of the United States in Montenegro within the “Criminal Justice Civil Society Program”.
There is an international and regional tendency of prosecutors’ offices to specialize in criminal offence of corruption and organized crime. Old member states of the European Union have specialized bodies in charge of solving complex criminal offences such as the Prosecutor’s Office for the fight against mafia in Italy, the Office for suppression of corruption within the Prosecutor’s Office in Spain, Serious Fraud Office in the United Kingdom, and alike. In the countries of Eastern Europe similar models have been established during the last decade: in Croatia and Latvia in 2001, in Romania in 2004, in Macedonia in 2008, in Slovenia in 2011, and in Bulgaria in 2012.
Yet, the comparative experience shows that the establishment of special prosecutor’s offices does not guarantee quick and significant results. The path to better, greater and more significant results of special prosecutor’s offices in the fight against organized crime and corruption depends on a set of internal and external factors. Time is needed for first visible results.
Of particular importance for a successful start of work of the SPO is having a wide societal consensus with regard to appointment of the key office holders in the SPO. Additionally, employees in the State Prosecutor’s Office need to acknowledge the necessity to replace part of the special prosecutors’ team in order for reforms to take effect and create a new working environment based on fundamentally different principles of work.
Having in mind the comparative experience, the appointment for the position of special prosecutor should be offered to a broader base of experts with experience in criminal cases: investigative judges, police inspectors with experience in organized crime, etc. This way, a diverse experience in the work of the prosecution would be ensured.
Prosecutors and other employees in the Special Prosecutor’s Office must undergo prior and ongoing security and asset checks. It is the recommendation of IA for this to be an exclusive requirement in the process of appointment of the Chief Special Prosecutor and special prosecutors. This practice has become a standard and takes into account the special sensitivity of the cases that fall under the competence of special prosecutor’s offices. In that sense, the law should prescribe the procedure and the role of the competent state administration body which would carry out such checks, including a provision defining the necessary consent of the person over which the checks are performed. In the case of a negative opinion, an insight into the material collected should be provided, as well as the possibility for the person in question to respond to such claims.
The question of true competences of the Special Prosecutor’s Office is one of the key issues to be dealt with. It should be regulated in accordance with the principle of unburdening the SPO. Therefore, High State Prosecutor’s Office should handle cases for which it has the necessary capacities. The definition of criminal offences that fall under the competence of the SPO should include all forms of organized crime, corruption-related offences committed by public officials, in line with the definition contained in the Law on prevention of conflict of interest, or civil servants above a certain amount, thereby precisely defining the competence of this prosecutor’s office for corruption of greater danger for the public. Nevertheless, if by the new Law on the Special Prosecutor’s Office investigative tools of the SPO, as well as administrative and technical capacities, are adequately improved, the competences should not be placed too narrow, and should include other difficult to prove criminal offences.
Law on the STO should stipulate that public authorities, administrative bodies and companies, mainly banks, make themselves available to the STO and discipline themselves to promptly respond to requests made by the SPO and submit requested data. This shall be ensured by prescribing strict misdemeanor provisions for failure to comply with the requests of the SPO within the stipulated timeframe. A possibility of referral of employees of other agencies, like police officers from Customs Administration, Tax Administration, Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing Terrorism, Inspection Directorate, to work at the SPO should be provided, as well as the possibility of forming investigative teams.
The most complex and crucial challenge is defining communication, cooperation and coordination between the SPO and the Police Administration, both at the level of heads of these two bodies, as well as at the level of prosecutors and police officers working together on a daily basis. Therefore, one segment of the Criminal Police should be institutionally and organizationally linked to the STO. In order to strengthen the authority of the Chief Special Prosecutor in the strictly hierarchically structured Police Administration, Chief of Police shall, after obtaining the opinion of Chief Special Prosecutor, appoint and dismiss heads of sectors and adopt a decision which regulates in greater detail the work of the department in accordance with the law.
Evaluation of the work results of the Chief Special Prosecutor and special prosecutors should be in line with the stricter criteria than for other state prosecutors. In case of lack of good results of a special prosecutor, the possibility of returning to the state prosecutor’s office in which the function was performed prior to the appointment to the STO should be provided. Similarly, the determination of salary and other factors of motivation of prosecutors and expert and administrative staff employed at the STO is important as a prerequisite for the preservation of the integrity and professionalism of the staff. Furthermore, it represents the need to ensure the interest of the most qualified experts in the field to work in this institution.
It is necessary to establish the adequate qualifications for expert staff of the SPO, bearing in mind the real needs and realistic limitations in the qualified labor market. There should be room for outsourcing possibility both at the national and international labor market for highly specialized services. Especially interesting is the solution in Serbia, where the measure of ‘introducing a team of economic forensic experts in public prosecutor’s offices’, which is a response to difficulties in initiating and carrying out financial investigations due to the absence of adequate experts in the economic-financial area in the prosecution, is introduced.
Given the high expectations of the new STO and also a very likely extension of its competencies by the new law, the STO should prepare a special annual performance report, which shall be evaluated by the competent working body of the Parliament. The contents, i.e. the type of information to be encompassed by this report should be defined in advance. Additionally, public relations and publishing information on cases of special interest must be significantly improved.
Finally, in order to avoid legal uncertainties, a special challenge will represent harmonizing this Bill with amendments to a number of laws governing the work of the State Prosecutor’s Office and the Police, such as the Criminal Procedure Code, the Law on State Prosecutor’s Office, the Law on Conducting Financial Investigations, the Law on Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, the Law on Prevention of Corruption, etc. Therefore, special attention should be devoted to coordination of these processes.
Dina Bajramspahic
Public Policy Researcher
The text is originally published in the electronic monthly magazine for European Integration “European Pulse“, published by Centre for Civic Education (CCE)
Our researcher, Dina Bajramspahić, presented the lessons learned from Montenegro in the framework of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) “Open Government Partnership in Bosnia and Herzegovina” conference, held in Sarajevo on June 9.
Analitika, Center for Social Research, in cooperation with Transparency International BiH, CPI foundation, and Center for Investigative Journalism (CIN) with the support of Open Society Foundation and the European Union, organized conference for representatives of civil society of Bosnia and Herzegovina, public authorities, experts in the field of open government, media and academia, as well as the international community in BiH. The aim of the conference was to advocate for the membership of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the multilateral OGP initiative.
Dina participated in the first panel which aimed to provide insight into the international standards promoted by OGP, the process itself, as well as the practices of other countries (Great Britain, Macedonia, Montenegro). The panel was moderated by Jeff Lovitt from Pasos.
Topics and speakers on the first panel were:
„What Does it Take to Have a Truly Open Government? International Standards and Practices“ – Helen Darbishire, Access Info Europe, Executive Director,
„Where is the OGP Today? Key Achievements and Challenges“ – Paul Maassen, OGP Civil Society Coordinator,
„Implementing Openness: Lessons from an OGP Founder“ – Kitty von Bertele, Head of Policy and International Team, Transparency Team at Cabinet Office, UK Government
„Government Benefits and Challenges in the OGP: Learning from the Experience of Macedonia“ – Irena Bojadzievska, National OGP Coordinator, Ministry of Information Society and Administration of Macedonia
„Implementation of OGP Commitments in Practice: The Experience of Montenegro“ – Dina Bajramspahić, Institut Alternativa.
Panelists discussed the process, responsibilities and challenges that the Government and civil society face in the process of opening public institutions. In her presentation, Dina pointed out challenges in creating the first OGP Action Plan in Montenegro (shortcoming with the indicators, deadlines, budget, etc), as well as problems in the implementation of Action Plan (the inability of Operation Team to influence implementation of the measures and make recommendations for improvement, irregular reporting, etc) and also gave a review of where Montenegro is at this point when it comes to the obligations within the initiative.
In 2013, at least 476 persons were recruited for job positions in state administration bodies, in line with the new Law on Civil Servants and State Employees and procedures which entail obligation of oral and written testing. More than half of these vacancies were filled by internal announcements. In most of the cases, ranking lists for selection of the job candidates were composed only from one candidate.
Human Resources Management Authority, the most relevant authority for the implementation of vacancy announcements, regularly published the qualification assessment results and thus facilitated monitoring of application of the new rules. However, authorities lacked readiness for the implementation of the new Law. Until January 1, 2014, data for only one third of civil servants and state employees, falling under the scope of this Law, were submitted to the Central Human Resources Register.
Legal status of fixed term employees in state administration was not adequately resolved before the Law started implementing. Job security of these employees is thus severely endangered. In 2013, Ministry of Interior had 500 fixed-term employees although the Law allows this kind of employment only in exceptional circumstances. More than third of these employees will lose their jobs, because they fail to meet eligibility criteria for positions they currently occupy.
At least two state administration authorities, Education Bureau and Agency for Environmental Protection, concluded employee transfer agreements with the agency for employment mediation. They have thus circumvented obligatory testing procedures and breached the Law.
Five people appealed against recruitment procedures in state administration authorities over the previous year. The three appeals against the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Finance and Agency for Environmental Protection were upheld. Decisions on upholding these appeals suggest the inconsistencies in ensuring funds for filling of vacancies and disrespect of eligibility criteria for a job position. The rejected appeals namely tackled the qualification assessment of the candidates but they also pinpointed the confusion caused by the re-organisation of Montenegrin state administration.
Based on the analysis of the majority of recruitment, it is impossible to determine whether the candidate with the highest ranking has been selected. Performance appraisal in state administration authorities is also inadequate as demonstrated by Administration for prevention of money laundering and financing of terrorism, whose all employees, without exemption, were given an excellent grade.
With an aim of ensuring the consistent implementation of the Law, it is thus necessary to implement measures against abuse and circumvention of the new rules. Institutional capacities should be improved, as well as the procedures for selecting the candidates.
Instead of conclusion: The main challenges of implementation of new recruitment and promotion procedures
New recruitment and promotion rules brought some progress in terms of obligatory and more closely regulated qualification assessment for entering the civil service and in terms of the availability of the assessment results. On the other hand, the first year of the LCSSE implementation demonstrated many deficiencies, such as unresolved legal status of fixed-term employees and circumvention of the stricter procedures for filling the vacancies.
Key challenges in implementation of the new recruitment and promotion procedures entail:
Employment mediation, which represents direct infringement of the Law; during 2013 at least two state authorities concluded agreements with employment mediation agency;
Inadequate composition of the Commissions which are tasked with the assessment of qualifications of candidates for job positions in state authorities; these bodies are usually comprised from the independent experts whose competences are not relevant for the particular vacant job position;
Role of the state authorities in distribution of the practical part of the test, whose score is most crucial for selection of the candidates;
Incomplete Central Human Resources Register, which contains only third of the civil servants and state employees who fall under the scope of the Law; in other words, there is no enough information to ensure adequate human resources planning and to ensure insight into the expert and working skills of civil servants and state employees;
Poor competitiveness of filling the vacancies, illustrated by the majority of ranking lists being comprised only from one candidate;
Vague explanation of the recruitment decisions, failing to provide ranking and other criteria upon which the certain candidate was selected;
Lack of transparency in application of the new rules;
Arbitrary performance appraisal which results in largely uniform grades for all the employees in a state administration authority;
Delays in adoption of the by-laws necessary for the implementation of the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees;
Insufficient administrative capacities of Human Resources Management Authority and Administrative Inspection, key institutions for implementation and monitoring of the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees.
Recommendations for prevention of abuses:
Administrative Inspection, State Audit Institution and judiciary should undertake necessary actions in order to determine the actual scope of LCSSE violation, with special focus on curtailing employment mediation practices.
All state authorities should comply with the provisions of the Law on free access to information, publish and regularly update lists of their employees with the job titles and internal announcements within the state authority.
With an aim of preventing abuse of legal possibility to temporarily move a civil servant or state employee to a different job position or to a different state authority, the ammendment to the LCSSE should clearly specify rights and duties of civil servants and state employees and state authorities upon the expiration of this temporary period.
State authorities should issue employees’ grades within the legally prescribed deadline, along with the detailed explanation which follows the criteria and benchmarks of performance appraisal as they are defined by the LCSSE and the Decree on the criteria and method of performance appraisal of civil servants and state employees.
All state authorities should undertake filling of vacancies only if they had previously secured the necessary financial means.
Reports on inspection oversight of recruitment and promotion in state authorities should be publically available on web page of Ministry of Interior.
HRMA and state authorities should ensure equal treatment of job candidates applying; candidates who fail to meet the criteria of the announcement should not be allowed to go through the testing and selection procedures.
HRMA and Ministry of Interior should organise the informative campaigns in order to raise public awareness about rights and duties of civil servants and state employees and job candidates.
Recommendations for selection of the candidates:
Heads of state authorities should clearly state the reasons for selection of the certain servant or employee and his or hers ranking in the explanation of the recruitment decision. If the candidate with the highest ranking had not been recruited, the reasons of not doing so should be clearly stated.
With an aim of further delimiting the discretion of heads of state authorities in the recruitment and promotion of civil servants and state employees, Government should bring special guidelines which would define the reasons for not selecting a candidate with the highest ranking (e.g. because he or she gave up or has been selected to a different job position, or because the other candidate has performed exceptionally during the assessment of special qualifications required for a particular job position).
Recommendations for qualification assessment:
With an aim of increasing objectivity of the qualifications assessment, state authorities and HRMA should implement the recommendation of the Ministry of Interior which suggested that the number of practical tests should be submitted to the HRMA, which will be in charge of further random distribution of these tests to the job candidates.
Given the poor response of experts to participate in the commissions for qualification assessment, HRMA should put an additional effort and directly call all the relevant professional organisations, academic community and other representatives of civil, private and public sectors to delegate the experts for taking part in these commissions.
Objective, professional and planning approach towards the qualification assessment is needed, and it should entail preparation of concrete tasks and questions which would be included in the qualification assessment plans.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Milena Milosevic, our researcher, spent one month at the German Council on Foreign relations (DGAP) within the programme financed by the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB).
Although the fight against corruption and organized crime is one of the most frequently used phrases in the Montenegrin public discourse, European Commission’s 2013 Montenegro Progress Report continues to express serious concerns for the situation in this area. Isolated cases of arrests as a result of work of the Special Prosecutor’s Office do not create an impression of uncompromising determination of the state for everyone in Montenegro to be equally responsible before the law. The idea of reorganization and establishment of the independent Special Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime came from Miroslav Lajčak, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia. This proposal was endorsed by the Government of Montenegro, which announced its plan to establish the Special Prosecutor’s Office modeled by the Croatian Uskok.
Our researcher, Dina Bajramspahić, presented the lessons learned from Montenegro in the framework of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) “Open Government Partnership in Bosnia and Herzegovina” conference, held in Sarajevo on June 9.
