Parliament to request the Report on Budget Execution

We appeal to the Ministry of Finance to prepare the report on what was happening with the state budget in the first six months of 2015 and to submit it to the Parliament. It is necessary that the MPs have the data how was the state budget spent based on organisational and functional classification in relation to the plan, before they start amending it.

For the last year, the Parliament has adopted the conclusion by which it has obliged the Government to prepare the report, which was (with the delay of almost a month) prepared and submitted to the MPs. That was the first time that the MPs had this kind of information during the fiscal year. However, MPs didn’t adopt that conclusion for this year. Since the Law does not prescribe this obligation, if the MPs don’t request the report, it will not be submitted.

Since the moment the budget is adopted, Parliament and the Budget committee don’t have any information on its execution during the fiscal year, until the discussion on the final budget account, which is delivered in the September the following year.

The reports prepared and published by the Ministry of Finance throughout the year are not being submitted to the Parliament; neither they contain the data on expenditures by organisational or functional classification, but only aggregated data by economic classification. That means that we do not have accurate information on the budget execution at the level of consumer units or state functions.

International standard in terms of budget transparency is that the Ministry of Finance, apart from the final budget account, prepares and submits various reports on monthly and semi-annual level during the budget execution.

Despite our efforts during the drafting the Law on Budget and Fiscal Responsibility, this competence was not included for the Ministry of Finance. In this respect, Montenegro is an exception in the region because all the neighboring states have regulated mechanisms of submitting semi-annual reports on budget execution to the Parliament.

The need for improving the quality and timeliness of budget reports during the year was noted by the World Bank in its report “Public expenditure and financial accountability“ from 2013, in which this aspect of budget transparency is criticized and evaluated with the worst mark (D).

Two proposals for amending the national budget are currently in the parliamentary procedure. (2) Prior to any amendments of the annual budget, it is necessary that the MPs have an overview of how the budget was spent in the last six months.

Marko Sošić

Public Policy Researcher

(1) OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency

(2) Proposal of SNP – Socialistic People’s Party (Aleksandar Damjanović), proposal of SDP – Social Democratic Party (Banović, Bralić, Vuksanović, Šabović)

Our administration or the non-merit based rule?

Naša uprava ili vladavina (ne)zaslužnih?In late April, the Institute Alternative (IA) has launched a new internet website. Symbolically, we have named it “My Administration”, to remind people that the government and state authorities are here because of us, and not because of them, i.e. administration itself, which often, encapsulated into the bureaucratic practices, transforms itself into a self-contained apparatus for harvesting the fruits of power.

We have recently witnessed a warning of the Prime Minister that those irresponsible in the state administration will be punished. The latter, however, with the exception of magic submissions of “resignations at personal request”, has practically never happened. What is more troubling, however, is that we are just silent witnesses of the events around us and within our administration, to which we pay taxes and fees for public services, disproportionate to their actual quality… While laud advocates of superficial development directions of our country are gathering at congresses, which are marked by deficit of women and established vision.

And by lack of choice.

The defining feature of non-democratic systems around the world is precisely an illusion of choice and its very simple mathematics, comprised, for example, in the election of 153 national representatives out of 153 candidates. This is how our ruling party has elected their leader, the only one who dared to run for president.

In most cases, unfortunately, this is how our state employees are being appointed too.

The IA’s findings have shown that very little has been done to establish a merit based system in our state administration, precisely because the main problem of our society – a lack of competition – reflects on this sector too.

This systemic ailment has deflated the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees, which was expected to sow the seeds of depoliticisation and professionalisation, two multifaceted concepts which compress everything that Montenegrin administration should strive for.

The Law promised a reduced discretion in recruitment of state administration staff, by confining a ranking list from which the head of authority can appoint a civil servant to a total of five candidates.Yet, we now know is that the ranking list only occasionally consists of five candidates, or four, or three. More often, it has only one candidate. Just as in the case of election of the president of our ruling party or, once upon a time, in the case of election of the delegates into the bodies of self-governing organizations and the assemblies of socio-political organizations in former Yugoslavia.

Even when our administration is injected competitiveness, the top – ranked candidates are those who suffer. The IA’s findings point to the dissatisfaction of the candidates who, although given the best score during the testing procedures, are not being appointed because of subjective reasons, which are difficult to verify since they often refer to the level of motivation or communication skills. Sometimes, the prevailing reasons for choosing another candidate directly contradict with principles of meritocracy, or, literally, of “the rule based on merit”.

As such, meritocracy is maybe utopia, which, if maintained in its fullness, as one British sociologist suggested, could have a negative, frustrating effect on those less capable or less smart in a society. However, that still does not mean that a system based on merit should not be a principle to be pursued.

It is encouraging, though, that, from time to time, a handful of courageous contacts us. They do it either directly through our new website or by using less modern messengers: telephone, electronic mail, or sometimes, over the first morning coffee, they tell us about the injustice they suffered while trying to achieve one of their basic human rights – the right to work. The fact that they have chosen the state administration does not make them lonely in a country where a majority of citizens, according to a survey, would rather have “a government job” for a salary of 450 euro than a private sector job for a salary of 750 euro. On the other hand, the fact that employment in state authorities is very often “a contest without contestants”, despite the attractiveness of the government job, should be “a wake-up call” for policy makers and representatives of the international community, and society itself, which often, due to the prevailing apathy, “reconciles with destiny”.

Milena Milošević
Public Policy Researcher

Text originally published in the section ,,Forum” of Daily Vijesti

Press Release: Conduct checks on the spot related to the Secret Surveillance Measures and request the data from the operators

Data on the Secret Surveillance Measures (SSM) published by judiciary must not remain an exception; and Parliament has to continue with systemic oversight of the implementation of these measures. It is necessary that the Committee on Defense and Security persistently conducts “on the spot” checks and request the data on wiretapping from operators.

Based on the proposal of Institute Alternative and on the request of the MP Snežana Jonica, the Supreme Court and the Chief State Prosecutor’s Office have delivered to the Parliament the data on the approved SSM and their results. Although this is the step forward in relation to the multi-year non-transparent implementation of the measures when only sporadic data on this sensitive issue were published, reporting on SSM must not remain the exception, but it has to become regular practice.

We are also reminding that the Committee on Defense and Security, which has the legal right to checks “on the spot” regarding the application of SSM, has conducted the check only once since the Law on Parliamentary Oversight was adopted in 2010. MPs have visited the Division for Special Checks within the Police Department in 2013, when they faced the impossibility to identify potential abuses since the necessary technical conditions weren’t met. In that sense, it wasn’t confirmed but neither rejected the doubts that the Editor-in-Chief and the journalist of daily “Dan” were illegally wiretapped. However, it is not known whether any steps forward were made since then in order to improve the state of affairs, nor have the MPs proposed formal initiative with the goal to fulfill the conditions which would enable the Committee to conducts the real oversight and to find out unambiguous facts, in the case if there exist the suspicion of abusing the measures.

In this regard, we urge the Committee not to give up its right to control but to develop mechanisms for monitoring, bearing in mind that the application of SSM violates constitutionally guaranteed rights. In addition, we believe that the Committee should request information on the scope of the applied measures immediately and providers of mobile and internet services, since the operators, in accordance with the Law on Electronic Communications shall, together with the competent state body upon whose request a lawful interception is conducted, shall be obliged to provide permanent records on this activity (Article 180, paragraph 3). In this way it can be determined whether there are differences between the measures approved by the courts and of the measures itself.

In addition, the data revealed by the judiciary can serve as a proof to the National Security Agency that there will be no harm to national security if they start to proactively publish the number of persons who are wiretapped. The NSA had a good practice and until 2008 has made these data available to the public, but since 2009, they consider that the aforementioned numeric data are “endangering the execution of tasks of the NSA.” Committee on Defense and Security also did not insist on its right to control the SSM applied by the NSA and since 2010 has not conducted any control in this matter in the premises of the National Security Agency.

More frequent control by the competent Committee and introduction of practice of requesting the data from the operators would not only increase the responsibility of both the Police and the NSA, but it would also contribute to ensuring that the citizens overcome the fear that the authorities are illegally listening to their telephone conversations or read their electronic messages.

Dina Bajramspahić
Public Policy Researcher

Strengthening the impact of State Audit Institution – The mutual cooperation is necessary

We are still far from effective control of the budget and far from the impact of the State Audit Institution (SAI) we wish for, it was concluded at today’s conference organized by Institute alternative. In this mission, Parliament, Government, Prosecutor’s Office and other institutions must have more active role and they should use the SAI’s report in their work, in order to establish accountability for any misuse and in the fight against corruption, as well as in systemic problem existing in the public sector.

Year in, year out, the Government is implementing less than 30% recommendations related to the final budget account and it tolerates the auditees’ failure to submit information to Ministry of Finance about what they have done in order to implement the obligations from SAI recommendations and from the Action plan for its implementation.

Aleksandar Damjanović, the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Economy, Finance and Budget, has announced the establishing of sub-committee on control of public finances for this fall, as one of the examples of fulfillment the obligation from the Action plan for Strengthening Legislative and Control Role of the Parliament. Moreover, he announced that the protocol on cooperation between the Committee and the SAI will soon be signed, which will ensure better exchange of information, significantly more engagement in each audit reports and monitoring the fulfillment of the recommendations.

The Senate of SAI has announced that they will dedicate special attention to the development of the methodology for the monitoring and evaluation of the fulfillment of the recommendation by the auditees. Moreover, it has been announced that the SAI will work on strengthening the cooperation with State Prosecutor’s Office in order to determine the criminal liability related to the misuse of the budgetary funds which SAI encounters in its work.

One of the topics at the conference was what happens after the SAI reports are published, in terms of misuse and irregularities. It was concluded that it is unacceptable that the Prosecutor’s Office keeps ignoring audit reports and fails to carry out investigations on the basis of those reports, which SAI submits to them. In addition, misdemeanor charges, requests for compensation and clear definition of political accountability have to be an integral part of SAI’s work in the future if we want to stop practices that SAI has observed throughout the years.

The fact that the Parliament is allowing the Senate of SAI to work in an incomplete composition for almost five years has also been subjected to criticism.

The capacities of SAI were also discussed, because SAI works with only half of the planned number of state auditors, while the Ministry of Finance continues to approve new employments in the SAI.

The attitude of the Institute alternative is that it is unacceptable that the Parliament violates the Law on State Audit Institution by appointing the state auditor in the Council of the Agency for the prevention of corruption, who cannot be the member of any managing body of legal entities.

Institute Alternative has also announced that new website www.mojnovac.me will be launched soon and it will offer data which will show which auditees are fulfilling the SAI’s recommendations.

The policy debate “Strengthening the impact of the State Audit Institution in Montenegro” is the part of the project “Together towards accountability – strengthening the impact of the state audit in Montenegro”, supported by the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Belgrade. The goal of the project is to increase the level of the implementation of SAI’s recommendations, as well as strengthening ties between the SAI and the Parliament of Montenegro, civil society organizations and internal auditors in the public sector.