Posted on

IA took part in the public consultations on the Draft Strategy for Information Society Development in Montenegro until 2020

IA’s public policy researcher Milica Milonjić presented our commentary on the Draft Strategy for Information Society Development in Montenegro until 2020 at the public consultations held on 17 June 2016 in the Rectorate of the University of Montenegro. We also submitted our commentary in writing to the competent ministry.

Despite some changes for the better in relation to the previous strategy covering the period 2012-2016, we have recognized that there is room for further improvements especially when it comes to evaluation and performance audit of the previous strategy, providing information on the cost and sources of funding of the new strategy, defining mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation, as well as providing for inclusion of more social partners and greater comprehensibility of the document to the general public.

Milica particularly stressed the need to establish a clear link between the new strategy and the objectives planned under the previous one, meaning what has been done in the past and what was planned, but not implemented. Unfulfilled obligations from the previous document should be identified and the causes that led to the failure to implement them should be explained in order to devise activities which would address the root causes of the problems. Additionally, we believe that the lack of baseline values for a number of indicators will make it difficult to monitor and evaluate the progress in implementing the reforms in the forthcoming period. Furthermore, it is necessary to specify the cost and sources of funding of the new strategy. Correct and precise budget planning is necessary to ensure adequate and timely implementation of envisaged activities while the information on the sources of funding will allow for seeking of donor support in a timely manner. Finally, considering that this is a horizontal document which encompasses more than 50 authorities at the national and local level, we believe that it is necessary to envisage mechanisms for coordination of the implementation of activities, as well as mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of the strategy and the evaluation of results.

The effects of the implementation of this strategy are far-reaching for society as a whole. The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in public administration will improve its efficiency and speed up the reform towards a service-oriented public administration, which will facilitate the implementation of public policies in various fields such as health, education, and social protection. Also, ICTs offer significant opportunities for economic growth and development and thus improve living standard of citizens.

Commentary of Institute Alternative on the Draft Strategy for Information Society Development in Montenegro until 2020 is available here (in Montenegrin only).

Posted on

IA comments for better Human Resources Management in Judiciary

Current Draft of the Strategy for Human Resources Management in Judiciary, aimed at improving the situation in this area, is missing the target value and coherence with other key documents and regulations in this area.

The adoption of specific Strategy for Human Resources Management in Judiciary is envisaged by the Government’s Agenda for the second quarter of this year. However, a key part of the draft of this document – strategic guidelines, are only generally defined and do not contain the target value for monitoring the effectiveness of their implementation.

In its comments, Institute Alternative (IA) also pointed out other necessary measures for improving human resources management, which are the backbone of the overall reform of judiciary, given that the overall results of the judicial institutions depend on the integrity and efficiency of judges and prosecutors, as well as their advisors.

We have recommended the adoption of the specific program budgets for courts and prosecutors’ offices. Draft Strategy correctly identifies the need for allocation of budget funds to courts and prosecutors’ offices. However, we believe that specific programs for these consumer units should be clearly defined, with objectives and indicators which would allow monitoring of results of these institutions, and, inter alia, the implementation of the guidelines of the Strategy for Human Resources Management.

Also, current consideration of Amendments to the Law on Wages of Public Sector Employees is the right moment to assess its effects on the performance of employees in judicial institutions. Namely, besides introducing special bonuses for employees working on cases of corruption and organised crime, this Law abolished the wagegrades, and therefore the possibility of promotion for civil servants. If bear in mind tendency to give advisers in judicial system greater powers and more responsibilities, then the problem of practically disabling their promotion should also be reconsidered as well as potential amendments to legislation.

It is extremely important that Judicial Council and the Council for Monitoring the Implementation of Judicial Reform Strategy, when adopting the Framework Standards of judges’ work and the Mid-Term Plan for streamlining judicial network, bear in mind the cross-section and the guidelines from this Draft Strategy. Otherwise, it may happen that we have related, but mutually incompatible documents. Therefore, the issue of coordination of Strategy implementation is central and results of the Strategy will depend on it. The solution of making the Council for Monitoring the Implementation of Judicial Reform Strategy competent for the implementation of this Strategy too, as proposed in the current Draft, is good, because this body has a complete overview of related reforms. However, in order to improve the quality of work of the Council, it is necessary to expand its membership to the non-governmental sector.

The Draft Strategy ignored the entire range of issues referring to civil servants in judiciary that are mainly a result of unclear rules and excessive arbitrariness in employing this staff. Several cases discovered by IA during monitoring of recruitment and promotion in state authorities, based on the decision of the Appeals Commission from 2014, indicate that for certain positions in State Prosecutor’s Office qualification assessment has not even been conducted.

Milena Milošević
Public Policy Researcher

IA Comments on Draft Strategy for Human Resources Management in Judiciary (only in Montenegrin)

Posted on

TV Vijesti Interview: Passivity of MPs in Montenegrin Parliament

Dina Bajramspahić, public policy researcher has issued a statement for TV Vijesti that the Parliamentary oversight is at the lowest level possible.

“Security and Defense Committee has held only two sessions in this year, despite having important competences in controlling security and defense sector. It is worth mentioning that MPs receive monthly fee for Committee membership, regardless of whether they have worked or not”, Dina said.

A large number of sessions of the plenum and working bodies is being postponed due to the absence of MPs, making the quorum unachievable.

Institute Alternative would support potential amendments to the Code of Ethics of MPs, that would foresee fines for MPs who do not come to the sessions of the working bodies and the plenum.

“If we have a situation that the law foresees the obligations of working bodies, and that no such obligations have been performed, then it is really necessary to consider a more rigorous solutions in order to force MPs to do their job,” says Bajramspahić.

And that such a solution would not be a novelty, since that is something that is supported by the slightly older democracies, shows the comparative practice of a number of European countries. For example, in German Bundestag, for each absence to the session, MP receives 100 euros a lower salary. MPs in France who are absent more than twice in a month, get fined by 355 euros less of their salary and more. There are sanctions in the European Parliament as well. MEPs exercise daily lump sum of 298 euros, in case you do not show up in the days of plenary sessions, the amount they will be reduced by half.

However, there are some positive examples: “The most active working body is the Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget, which despite the approaching elections, and the situation in the Parliament on the political level is very complex, still insists upon the holding sessions and filing initiatives, by all MPs. However, other committees are lagging very much behind this committee,” Bajramspahić concluded.

See more at:

 

Posted on

IA’s Comments on Draft Law on Public Assembly and Public Performances

We have delivered our comments and suggestions for improvement to the Draft Law on Public Assembly and Public Performances, which is to be discussed soon, to the MPs, members of the Committee on Political System, Judiciary and Administration.

Generally, this Draft is better and far more precise when compared to the Law on public assembly which is currently in force. The greatest breakthrough of this draft is the transfer of responsibility for maintaining public peace and order from the organizers of public assemblies to the Police Administration. If this solution were to be adopted, the state could meet its obligations: negative, to abstain of interfering in exercise of right to public assembly and positive, to ensure the possibility to organize a peaceful assembly. Another important change refers to the more effective legal remedy, given that the organizer of can submit a complaint directly to the Administrative Court, which has to decide upon it within 48 hours of receipt of the case files from the Police.

However, we recognize that there is still space for further improvements of the draft, as well as for the more precise definition of the obligations of the state and the rights of citizens, in order to contribute to legal certainty and security of this act which is regulating this area of human rights. Aforementioned mainly concern:

a) locations where public assemblies are banned,

b) the duties of the Police Administration in cases where it temporarily restrict freedom of assembly,

c) the legal recognition of different forms of public gathering.

IA Comments in their entirety can be found here (so far, only in Montenegrin)

Posted on

Press release: Urgently stop the persecution of Vanja Ćalović

NGO Coalition “By Cooperation To the Goal”, which in addition to the Institute Alternative gathers another 100 NGOs from Montenegro, has called upon the Constitutional Court to suspend enforcement of the judgment of the High Court by which is the director of MANS Vanja Ćalović has been ordered to publish the judgment in a dispute with Vladimir Popović in all media outlets in Montenegro and Serbia.

This judgment represents the persecution of NGO activist because by creating a disproportionate obligation for Vanja Ćalović, from which the bailiff requests to pay 25,000 Euros in advance, at the expense of publishing the judgment in all media in Montenegro and Serbia.

Given the fact that thousands of media operate in Montenegro and Serbia, it is clear that this judgment intends to destroy the livelihood of Vanja Ćalović, since it is not known what is the final amount necessary for execution of the judgment in its entirety.

If the Constitutional Court does not respond immediately and suspend the execution of the judgment of the High Court, the conclusion will be that the entire judicial apparatus has joined the persecution of NGO activist.

Instead of justice for the victim of an unprecedented campaign, the court continues with the prosecution.

Posted on

Announcement: Five stars of transparency for the Institute Alternative

For a third year in a row, Institute Alternative was awarded with five stars for the transparency of its finances, according to the research conducted by the non-profit organization Transparify

IA transparify logoThe report published today, as during previous years, included Montenegro where Institute Alternative was awarded with five stars for transparency, together with the Center for Democratic Transition (CDT). Therefore, we were ranked among prestigious research centers, such as Bruegel and International Crisis Groups from Belgium and Amnesty International from Great Britain.

“The report enables citizens, journalists and decision-makers to identify those research centers that are devoted to integrity and transparency of research and advocacy of public policy. At the same time, the report points to those organizations that are funded behind closed doors”, the report emphasized.
A total number of 200 research centers that this year’s research encompassed, were ranked on a scale from 0 to 5 according to the transparency of their financing. Those centers that have gotten five stars allow the public to see clear and detailed information on who they are financed by, with how much money and for which activities, and they can therefore serve as an example that should be looked upon.

Transparify is an international initiative, started in 2014 and inspired by the fact that research centers from all over the world play a greater role in public policy shaping and public debates.