Press release: The Agency for Prevention of Corruption will not have enough resources

Determined budget proposal of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption is not based on a previous analysis of the optimal conditions for its work and providing results, it is not harmonised with other documents and regulations, and the procedure of its harmonisation reduces the jurisdiction of the Council of the Agency prescribed by the Law.

The director reduced an already insufficient budget of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption for more than 100 000 euro. This shows that priority activities and expenses for the first year of operation of this body are being determined unrealistically and irrationally. Unfortunately, when soon become necessary to increases this budget, it will be promoted as the generosity and success.

The delay in the adoption of bylaws, the Rulebook on internal organization and systematization, as well as the work plan of the Agency is additionally problematic. So, without screening the required profiles of officers who will be employed to work in this body, a higher amount of budgetary funds is being planed for the service contracts for “scarce expertise”, training, development and consultancy services, as well as for the procurement of vehicles, than for necessary data networking and software upgrades. Also, it is not explained if the donor funds are still being used for security structure, as outlined in the Action Plan for Chapter 23.

The classification of costs is not entirely clear, especially in the parts Internet and communication services and improvement of software and servers. The budget proposal does not comply even with the amount of additional compensation for employees. All this points to arbitrarily determining the established categories of the budget, without providing resources where they are most needed.

The role of the Council of the Agency is further significantly limited by the consideration of the budget proposal after the Government has already adopted this document. Dynamics was supposed to be reversed, since the regulations prescribe the debate in this body first, and then formal adoption by the Government. In this way, the scope for changing the budget is limited to subsequent amendments.

Hence it is clear that this approach, and the delay in filling vacancies, will significantly postpone operability of the Agency, which is a priority of Montenegro in the process of negotiations and only the first step in establishing a new framework for the prevention of
corruption.

Stevo Muk
President of the Managing Board

Towards more quality, sustainability and better coordination of public policies in Montenegro

Institute Alternative (IA) organized the Fourth Generation of Public Policy School at the hotel “Queen of Montenegro” in Bečići, from 7-9 November 2015. Nineteen policy makers from Montenegro have undergone an intensive programme, consisting of lectures, workshops and training. The School aims at providing the participants with adequate knowledge and skills to analyze public policies, design and conduct research, write policy papers, formulate recommendations for decision-makers and advocate for those recommendations.

The Fourth Generation of Public Policy School gathered 19 participants including public servants in the Government bodies, public servants in the local self-governments, employees of the Parliamentary Service, as well as representatives of NGOs, media and diplomatic missions to Montenegro. The participants had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the key aspects of formulation, analysis, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of public policies. During the course of our School, the following topics were discussed as well: the policy-making process in the Montenegrin public administration, the role of think tanks in public policy, and the role of state and non-state actors in the policy-making at the EU level.
Welcoming remarks were delivered by Jovana Marović, PhD, research coordinator at Institute Alternative. She stressed that this generation marks the highest number of applications received so far. This speaks highly of the quality of our programme, but also shows continuing interest of representatives of different sectors and institutions in developing knowledge and skills in the area of policy-making.

The introductory topics – definition of public policy and stakeholders, instruments and phases of policy creation were presented by Tihomir Žiljak, PhD, professor at the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Zagreb. The participants were especially interested in clarifying similar terms whose meaning is often misused in formulating public policy, like output, outcome and impact on one side, and politics, policy and polity on the other.

Professor Žiljak stressed that the policy process can have clear objectives and phases. In this case, the so-called phase approach is most commonly used. It consists of the following five phases: agenda setting; formulating options; selection of the best option, i.e. adoption of the political decision on how the problem will be solved and which instruments will be used; implementation of the decision adopted; and, in the end, evaluation of the chosen policy option. However, in everyday life phases of the policy process are not usually this clearly separated. Therefore, this “five-phase heuristics” represents a prescriptive model of policy-making. Nevertheless, in reality, it often occurs that there is not enough knowledge, time or political support for a particular policy decision. In that case, the incremental approach is implemented, which implies responding to current circumstances and finding solutions based on the principle of trial and error.

The lecturer stressed that politics represents a social construct and that this is particularly evident in the agenda-setting phase, considering that the policy problems become visible only when policy creators publicly recognize them as important. He illustrated his point with examples drawn from candidate countries for the EU accession since in these countries it is particularly difficult for the policy makers to adapt to the new patterns of behavior and action. Additionally, in the context of Europeanization of the South-East Europe, he discussed characteristics of Europeanization of public policies vs. Europeanization of politics, Europeanization after accession, as well as Europeanization outside accession.

During the second day, the focus was placed on the most disregarded phase of the policy cycle – evaluation of public policies. Lectures and workshops were lead by Dragiša Mijačić, MA, director of Institute for Territorial Economic Development (InTER) and PhD candidate at the University of Maastricht.

Within the group exercise, the participants tried to identify public policies in the newspapers and to assess which of the five stages of the policy cycle have the identified public policies reached. Based on the results presented, it was concluded that the attention of the decision makers and the media is not focused on the evaluation of public policies.

During the lectures, special emphasis was placed on the differentiation between concepts of monitoring and evaluation, as well as between input, output and outcome. The lecturer also discussed the purpose of the evaluation process and presented a variety of purposes for which the evaluation may be performed: ethical, managerial, decision-making purposes, as well as educational and motivational purposes. In addition, Mr. Mijačić presented different forms of evaluation – ex-ante or prospective, such as, for example, feasibility study; formative evaluation, such as mid-term evaluation; and summative or impact evaluation. Criteria for evaluation were also discussed while special emphasis was put on the implications of evaluation of public policies and the usage of a specific type of evaluation – Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in Montenegro.

The following lecture was given by Vladimir Pavićević, PhD, professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Belgrade. Mr. Pavićević talked about the methodology of academic writing and the difference between writing academic papers and writing policy papers. A special focus was placed on academic integrity, i.e. the obligation to respect other people’s work when developing policy proposals.

The second working day was continued with the lecture given by Dragan Đurić, PhD, professor at the Faculty of Political Science of the University of Montenegro and programme manager at the Regional School of Public Administration (ReSPA). While presenting the process of policy-making at the Montenegrin public administration, Mr. Đurić particularly highlighted the impact of good governance on sustainable economic growth. He indicated the importance of the South East Europe 2020 Strategy and its additional, cross-cutting pillar “Governance for Growth”.

The third working day began with the lecture delivered by Jovana Marović, PhD, research coordinator at Institute Alternative (IA). Ms. Marović spoke about the political system of the European Union, the supremacy of EU law, and the manner in which acts like regulations, directives, decisions and recommendations are implemented at the national level. In addition, she presented the work of think tanks and the main differences between these organizations and other types of NGOs. This presentation was followed by a workshop on different techniques of advocacy, during which the participants were divided into two groups and were tasked with presenting one policy problem through advocacy process, thus defining the content of the message they wish to communicate, the actors who will be the senders of the message, as well as the language and format in which the message will be communicated.

Vladimir Pavlović, coordinator of the Centre for European Integration of Belgrade Open School (BOŠ) and certified trainer for Policy Paper Writing (LGI Budapest), held the training on writing effective public policy papers. During this session, the focus was placed on the role of policy proposals in decision-making, the manner of structuring and creating coherent policy proposals, as well as on strategies for writing and further usage of policy proposals.

As the main reading, the participants used the collection of papers of the lecturers within Public Policy School entitled “Public Policies”, which was published by Institute Alternative in 2014. Numerous additional readings were provided by the lecturers in electronic form. The program was closed by delivering certificates of attendance to the participants.

The project Public Policy School is funded by the Commission for Allocation of Revenue from Games of Chance. The School is licensed as an official program for the acquisition of knowledge and skills in the field of public policy by the National Council for Education of Montenegro.

The call for participants of the Fifth Generation of Public Policy School will be announced in the second half of 2016.

Milica MILONJIĆ
Public Policy Researcher

Press release: Perpetuating old patterns of cooperation – Reach an agreement on the appointment of the Head of Special Police Unit as soon as possible!

The fact that the Police Director and the Chief Special Prosecutor cannot implement the law and reach an agreement on the appointment of the Special Police Unit is irresponsible, especially having in mind high expectations of the domestic and international public for the Special Prosecutor’s Office.

However, instead of showing dedication for solving problems between the Police and the Prosecutor’s Office, the Government allegedly proposes to sweep the problems under the rug by proposing amendments to the Law on Special State Prosecutor’s Office.

It is scandalous that the executive power threatens the Prosecutor’s Office by proposing amendments to the law that would reduce the powers and, thus, tries to discipline this organ. Additionally, it is worrying that out of 158 police officers who meet the legal requirements for the Head of this police unit, none of them has earned the trust of the Police Director and the Special Prosecutor, while the agreement remains unreached for months.

The Police Director and the Chief Special Prosecutor are obliged to publicly announce their proposal for the appointment of the Head of Special Police Unit or which are the reasons and, above all, work results, that made them decide to support the future candidate. In particular, the Chief Special Prosecutor needs to explain which were the arguments was for rejecting candidates suggested by the police.

The meaning of the provisions which stipulates the involvement of the Special State Prosecutor’s Office in the procedure of appointment of the Head of Special Police Unit is to start the cooperation on investigations into high-level corruption and organized crime instead of the current modus operandi, where both sides wait for one another. Joint decision on the Head of this unit should also ensure ceasing the practice of blaming the other side for the lack of results.

Although Institute alternative has been warning about problems in cooperation between the Police and the Prosecution, recently adopted amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code have not been used to start solving this issue seriously. European Commission’s Report on Montenegro for 2015 has also emphasised that this problem is still current, stating that “practical problems in coordination and exchange throughout the law enforcement and judicial chain are not yet entirely resolved. This is one of the major shortcomings affecting results”. (p. 17)

Instead of amending the law, the competent authorities should more responsibly start solving the issues regarding the problematic staff and other burning issues which are currently a burden for the criminal proceedings.

From November, in collaboration with the Prosecutors association of Serbia, Institute alternative is implementing a new project dedicated to the analysis of problems in the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the support of the Royal Netherlands Embassy. By analyzing the problems and sharing experiences, our goal is to come up with joint recommendations for improving communication and coordination to the work of Police and Prosecutor’s offices in Montenegro and Serbia.

Dina Bajramspahić
Public Policy Researcher

Activities of civil sector in Montenegro are fight for professionalism and objectivity, not for its erosion

Centre for Civic Education (CCE) and Institute Alternative (IA) assess as hasty and unfounded the reaction of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, which underlines that it shall “consider further cooperation” with Human Rights Action (HRA), as well as that the “trust in the professionalism and objectivity of work” of this non-governmental organisation has deteriorated.

In addition to undisputed contribution to democratisation of society by Human Rights Action (HRA), we find that the correspondence between the executive director of this NGO and representative of European Commission was precisely for the purpose of creating an independent, professional and efficient judiciary, within which the appraisal and the appointment of judges and prosecutors would be based solely on precise and objective criteria.

Continuous obstructions that state bodies impose on civil society, reports from public debates with “favourable” comments and suggestions only, as well as the lack of access to the EC opinion on key legislation, are putting civil sector into situation to search for new ways to represent their recommendations. Thus, the communication with European Commission is actually the only safe manner which guarantees that recommendations of civil sector will be reviewed.

Supreme court of Montenegro and other state institutions have to respect the regulations which regulate the cooperation with civil sector, that enable free access to information, along with an additional obligation of reviewing all proposals and suggestions that could contribute in the improvement of institutional and legislative framework, instead of rejecting them in advance solely because they come from critically oriented organisations.

Stevo MUK, President of Management board of Institute Alternative (IA)
Daliborka ULJAREVIĆ, Executive director of Centre for Civic Education (CCE)

Event announcement: Presentation of the research findings on “Police integrity in Montenegro”

Institute alternative and Regional network of civil society organizations POINTPULSE invite you to the presentation of results of research „Police integrity in Montenegro“, which will take place in PR Centre, on 26th November at 11 a.m.

The aim of the event is to encourage discussion on challenges and priorities of building police integrity in Montenegro, with special reference to novelties and systemic shortcomings of the framework that should contribute to improving the integrity of the police.

Following issues shall be discussed:

1. How are human resources being managed within the police?
2. Is it possible to decrease political influence on police work?
3. How are finances being managed within the police?
4. Who is controlling the work of police and how?
5. What is the biggest challenge to police integrity in Montenegro?
6. How transparent Police Administration is?

Working language of the presentation is Montenegrin. Simultaneous interpretation to English will be provided.

Due to limited number of seats, please confirm your presence until Tuesday, 24th November 2015, via e-mail address info@institut-alternativa.org or via phone number 020/268-686.

Presentation on the same topic shall be organized simultaneously in Belgrade, Sarajevo and Pristine, where the research results shall be presented by the partners on the project: Belgrade Centre for Security Police (BCSP), Centre for Security Studies (CSS) and Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS).

Presentation of research finding is organized within the project “Western Balkans Pulse for Police Integrity and Trust: POINTPULSE”, supported by the European Union via program of Civil Society Facility (EuropeAid/136-034/C/ACT/Multi).

You can also follow the activities within the project on the website www.pointpulse.net, via Twitter account @POINTPULSEnet, or by using #BalkanCops and #POINTPULSE.

Performance Audit and Policy Evaluation in the Western Balkans: On the Same or Parallel Tracks?

From a conceptual perspective, performance audit and policy evaluation are very close fields, with highly converging goals, methods and tools. At the same time, in the Western Balkans these two fields have been evolving without connection and reference to each other. How can the two processes be brought closer together in the three studied WB countries – Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia – with a view to ensure efficiencies and synergic development of these rather novel performance management instrument?

The study is the final product of a research project which lasted over twelve months. The project “Performance Audit and Policy Evaluation: On the Same or Parallel Tracks?” is implemented in the framework of the Regional Research Promotion Programme in the Western Balkans (RRPP) with financial support of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).