The “mistery shopper“ research method was implemented for the first time in Montenegro regarding public service delivery, and the results show that the municipality and ministry service counter employees are kind, but that the quality of information received are graded as the worst.
The research was conducted by IPSOS Agency in March, within the project “Civil Society for Good Governance: to Act and Account!”, implemented by Institute Alternative in cooperation with the Centre for Investigative Reporting and NGOs Bonum, Natura and New Horizon, with the support of the European Union.
Mistery shopper is a technique that involves specially trained pollers visiting institutions in order to conduct an analysis of various parameters of the services these institutions provide. They act as regular service users, which enables them to objectively grade the service delivery in those institutions to a certain extent.
For the research conducted in Montenegro for the first time in the context of the public administration, there were 32 visits to choses bodies of public administration on the territory of eight montenegrin municipalities: Pljevlja, Kolašin, Ulcinj, Podgorica, Nikšić, Bijelo Polje, Danilovgrad i Bar.
The goal of the research was to get an objective overview of public service delivery as well as to analyse the work of service counter employees.
General professionalism and kindness of the employees was largely positively graded in most of the municipalities that made part of the research.
However, the availability of services was poorly graded. Many institutions lack an adequate access for persons with disabilities, and quite often even in those places where there are wheelchair ramps or elevators in ground floors, the public space is not adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities – for example, they have no access to other floors.
The quality of answers provided by the employees to specific request was also graded poorly – the employees have in rare cases asked all the necessary questions in order to map the citizens’ needs, in accordance to which they presented all the documents they needed as well as all the necessary expenses for acquiring those documents.
The quality of services was best graded in Ulcinj municipality (80% of services’ standard compliance), where the visits were conducted at the Secretariat for Economy and Economic Development, the local unit of the Ministry of Interior, the Secretariat for Administration and Social Services and the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Sustainable Development.
The selected services in the municipality of Nikšić were given the poorest grades (55%), where the pollers visited the local unit of Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Agriculture and municipality secretariats for local self-administration and urbanism.
The average grade for the quality of services of public administration for all municipalities involved in the research is 73% of standard compliance.
The full report of the research will soon be published.
Following the reaction by the Ministry of Interior (MoI) which shows us that it is not giving up on announced amendments to the Law on public assemblies and public performances, but still without any concrete arguments, Institute Alternative points out that each amendment to the legal regulation, especially those which would reduce that scope of human rights, should be started only after thorough analysis of the impact of the regulation in force.
Due to the lack of such an analysis, we cannot accept the MoI’s interpretation of endangered freedom of movement and the freedom of entrepreneurship of citizens who are not participating in public assemblies. Also, so far, the public has not been aware of the fact that any citizen has been deprived of urgent medical assistance due to peaceful public assemby, although the MoI states that the protection of citizens and the work of the services were endangered.
However, given that we fully understand and support the obligation of uninterrupted passage of emergency services in cases of assistance and protection to all citizens, Institute Alternative reminds of the Article 16 of the Law on public assmeblies and public performances, which obliges the organizer or the leader of the assembly to allow uninterrupted passage of police vehicles, emergency medical assistance, fire-fighting vehicles and other services of the public service needed to maintain order and peace at a public assembly. In a similar way, it would be possible to stipulate the obligation to provide uninterrupted passage to service vehicles in all emergency cases.
As we have already indicated, the lack of analysis data on concrete cases of endangered freedoms that the MOI calls upon when proposing amendments to the Law makes it impossible for the public to understand the MoI’s perspective in this case.
Apart from the lack of analysis, we remind of the fact that we have been repeatedly pointing out in our previous statements and letters sent to the Ministry: the announced changes would be unconstitutional. As said, the Montenegrin Constitution envisages the possibility of a peaceful public gathering being temporarily limited, enumerating the situations in which it is possible: in order to prevent riots or perpetration of a criminal offense, endangering health and morals (Article 52), thus anticipating temporary and extreme situations. The prohibition on gathering at the roads would mean an additional limitation for two reasons: because it is related to the location of the assembly – a ban that the Constitution does not recognize and it would be absolute, while the Constitution recognizes only temporary.
If the MoI, or the Government, have reported to the Parliament on the implementation of the Law on Public Assemblies and Public Performances by the end of March, as required by law (Article 32), we might have a solid proof. Since the public is not aware that this legal obligation has been respected, Institute Alternative once again invites the Ministry of Interior to publish analyses on the basis of which it has concluded that amendments to the Law on Public Assemblies and Public Performances are indispensable. Otherwise, the public will have the full right to believe that the amendments to the Law will be endanger their constitutionally guaranteed right.
According to FOS data, since the beginning of the year the Ministry of Interior (MoI) started 32 disciplinary procedures against police officers. Is this number illustrative of the fact that the accountability system in this department is functional? FOS talked about this and other topics to Dina Bajramspahić from Institute Alternative, who is a member of the working group for drafting the Law on Internal Affairs.
FOS: Does the number on 32 disciplinary procedures in four months say that the system of accountability in this department is functional?
Bajramspahić: 32 disciplinary procedures for grave violation of official duty in five months is a continuous trend from the past few years.
So in 2016 out of 117 proposals of heads of departments, 74 conclusions were started for procedures against 89 police officers, out of which 59 first instance measures were undertaken.
Besides, the immediate heads of organisational units started 38 disciplinary procedures in 2015 for minor violation of official duty – financial fines against employees of the Police Administration.
These data should be interpreted from two-folded perspective. First of all, if we take into consideration that there are 4 600 employees according to the systematisation, the results are minicous and there is a space for greater consistency in initiating procedures.
On the other hand, the Disciplinary Commission of the MoI sanctions more police officers than the Disciplinary Commission authorised for more than 8000 of public administration employees.
For the sake of comparison, according to the latest available data from the Central Personnel Record delivered to the Human Resources Administration, the number of disciplinary measures for grave violation of official duty amount to six for the entire public administration in 2013, and in 2014 there were 21 disciplinary measures (there were 3 for minor violation of official duty, and 18 for grave violations).
However, given that there was a high level of complaints and annulled decisions at the second instance, there is a minor number of public administration employees who were sanctioned, which has to be improved when it comes to the Police, as well as the rest of the public administration.
However, the abovementioned shows that the heads of departments in the Police Administration use the instrument of disciplinary responsibility more than it is used at the level of the entire public administration.
FOS: According to IA findings, are there police sectors that are protected?
Bajramspahić: I will continue with the logic of the previous question. There are also differences, so it is noted that in some organisational units of the Police the heads of departements start more cases and in some less, and they do so for the same or similar examples of violation of official duty that are repeated, which is not good.
The initiation of procedures depend on the understanding of the importance for the service by the heads of departments, and not the public, that within the service differences are made between responsible and conscientious officials and those who are not or who are less responsible and conscientious. If there is no consistency, there the heads of departmenets who start the procedures and who are disliked in the service will stop doing so.
In close communication with police officers, we also learned that there is the same problem with the objective assessment of police officers. The head of department will objectively evaluate the employees one year, but when they see that they are all rated excellent in another organizational unit, they will not “punish” their officers the following year.
It is therefore necessary for the management of the Police to influence the heads of departments who are estimated to exceed 200, not to make exceptions and not to act selectively, as this violates the fairness in the conduct and confidence of the employees themselves in the service and thus the overall functioning of the Police.
Of course, it is also noted that officials in senior positions respond to a lesser extent, that there is no systemic accountability for the results and that there are a number of cases where under political influence a tacit consent has been reached that no one will be held accountable. In the first place I refer to those responsible for the excessive use of force after the protest, but unfortunately the list is much longer.
The criminal liability of police officers is a specific topic, and even though there is some progress, these are also not consistent. For example, the competent organizational units submitted 10 criminal charges against 10 officers of the Police Administration in 2015, on grounds of reasonable doubt that they committed a total of 12 criminal offenses for which they are charged ex officio. On the other hand, the most famous cases of Zlatica, the building of the Police Administration, etc., where the damage amounts to milions, have not been solved for years. Such kind of selectivity is unacceptable and jeopardizes the integrity of the service as a whole, both in the eyes of citizens and in the eyes of police officers.
FOS: In which areas was there the most progress, when talking about the integrity of police officers?
Bajramspahić: When it comes to integrity, the problem lies not only in the bribes and abuse of official duty, but also in the excessive use of force, passivity in taking initiative, extortion of statements and the political influence of a number of police officers. Corruption is the second most frequent association of Montenegrin citizens when they think of the police, immediately behind “security, security, citizen protection”. For the reasons outlined, the integrity of the police must become one of the priority areas in further strategic development of this service.
FOS: Is MoI doing enough to encourage the citizens to report the officers who violate the rules of the service?
Bajramspahić: The transparency of internal mechanisms has been at a relatively high level for several years, since Internal Control publishes monthly work reports reporting on all complaints filed by citizens, and the Disciplinary Commission and the Ethics Committee make official statements after each session, and make a description of the case and final decision, which are also published in the media. The goal of these activities is that the citizens gain confidence that the complaints will not be placed in the drawer and forgotten. However, mere statemenets are not enough. Our public opinion polls have shown that the citizens are still not aware of all the available options.
Therefore, for example, a total of 51% of citizens heard about Internal Control. The questionnaire analysis has shown that the citizens of lower education, from rural settlements, have significantly less knowledge about Internal Control, as well as those who did not have contact with the police in the last year, and those who believe that corruption is not widespread in the police. Special information activities for these categories of citizens have not yet been created on how to appeal to the Internal Control and when. Even 51% of citizens who heard about Internal Control 61% believe that Internal Control deals with the “protection of human rights of police officers”.
Ministry of Interior is one of the rare ministries that do not have Facebook and Twitter page and which still communicates by dull statements for the public, even though it should dominate with service-oriented approach.
Given that the new Law on Internal Affairs is in progress, I expect the Working group, of which I am one of the members as the representative of Institute Alternative, will come to a solution for improvement of human resources management in the police, straightening of implementation of police authority as well as the improvement of accountability, which are the key issues for the better functioning of this service.
The interview was originally published at the official page of Fos media.
A month ago, Institute Alternative has sent a letter to the Minister of Interior regarding the amendments to the Law on public assembly and public performances, announced by Minister Nuhodžić in his answer to the MP’s question. Minister has announced the amendments aiming to ban the public assemblies on the city roads, due to alleged violation of the freedom of movement as well as alleged damage to the economy, as the consequence of the assemblies organised in front of the Parliament building in Podgorica.
It is our duty to point out the fact that the freedom of peaceful public assembly represents a fundamental human right, protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Announced amendments would stipulate absolute ban of the assemblies on specific location, which would endanger this right and, thus violate the Constitution and relevant international standards safeguarding this freedom.
Institute Alternative reminds that the international standards stipulate that it is the privilege of the citizens to choose the time and place of the assembly in accordance with its purpose. Additionally, standards state that the blanket restrictions and absolute bans on certain locations are by their very nature problematic since they are not in compliance with the mandatory principle of proportionality, which must be conducted on a case by case basis, rather than in advance.
Both letter are available below (only in Montenegrin).
Two-day training “CSO Participation in the Policymaking: Experiences from Poland and Hungary” was held in Budva, Montenegro, on 12-13 May 2017. The training, which was organized by Institute Alternative in cooperaton with European Policy Centre (CEP), gathered member organisations of the TEN network and partners from Poland and Hungary, as well as a representative of ReSPA (Regional School of Public Administration).
Participants had the opportunity to gain knowledge and insight into the features of Poland and Hungary’s policymaking systems, practical considerations, experiences of CSO involvement in the policymaking, and other good practices regarding the participation of civil society in these countries.
The training, moderated by the experts from Poland and Hungary, was interactive and provided the platform for discussion and sharing views among the participant organisations.
Mr Maciej Kolczyński, the expert at IDEA foundation from Poland, talked about the policymaking practices and CSO participation in Poland, presenting the “Citizens for Democracy” case. He explained that CSOs in Poland suffer from ad-hoc, project-based funding which threatens their sustainability and influence.
Mr Andrew Cartwright, Research Fellow at the Center for Policy Studies of the CEU, introduced participants into the Hungary’s policymaking systems and gave insight into the best practice examples of involvement of Hungarian CSOs in policymaking processes. Among other experiences, he shared that the NUTS transformation in Hungary was artificial and made a negative impact on the CSO cooperation and capacities to influence policymaking.
The training was organised as part of the project “Raising capacities and advocacy potential towards the more substantive involvement of CSOs of V4 and WB6“, implemented by TEN network and supported by the Visegrad Fund.
NGOs against the ban of protest at the boulevard in front of the Parliament
– Defending the Constitutional right to peaceful assembly –
Institute Alternative (IA), Centre for Civic Education (CGO), Centre for Development of NGOs (CRNVO) and Network for the affirmation of NGO sector (MANS) urge the Ministry of Interior not to persist in its intention to ban the organisation of public assemblies on roads through the amendments of law, because it is contrary to Montenegrin Constitution and international standards.
Even though Ministry of Interior justifies these amendments by referring to the verdict of European Court of Human Rights, case of Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, we warn the Ministry of Interior and public that this verdict does not justify the introduction of ban at the road in front of the Parliament of Montenegro.
Namely, in the abovementioned case, European Court of Human Rights did not support the organisers, who kept three main roads in the country blocked (p. 164), because such assembly was not approved by competent state bodies and it caused disproportionate material damage, which was documented. In that case, it was concluded that demonstrations were not directly focused on the activity against which they protested, but that their goal was to block other activities (highways) without any direct connection to object of protest (p. 171). In other words, European Court of Human Rights established that in this specific case general traffic block was organised with the intention to interfere with the activities of others and that such behaviour does not enjoy the protection according to Art. 11 of the Convention. Simultaneously, European Court emphasised that each public assembly can lead to obstruction of traffic and that this fact alone does not justify the limitation of freedom of peaceful assembly and that public authorities must show certain level of tolerance. (p. 155).
In the case of Montenegro, public assemblies in front of the Parliament, as the object of protest, were duly announced to the Police Department, after which they were allowed, thus were legal. According to that, citizens were obliged to organise their affairs in line with the announced, legal assembly.
Ministry did not provide any evidence which would favour the claim that any damage was made to the economy, hence we believe that the unspecified and unclear claims regarding the “damage made to the economy” must not be used lightly as grounds for the amendments of Law which violates human rights and freedoms. If the Ministry believes that the economy is at such great loss, based on which the rights of businessmen outweigh the rights of citizens to assembly, it should provide concrete evidence which would be acceptable for the European Court of Human Rights as well. Non-governmental organisations have already sought for such analysis from the Ministry.
Finally, the Constitution of Montenegro bans the introduction of permanent ban of gathering by precisely stating the circumstances when the right to assembly can be restricted temporarily, but certainly not permanently. The Constitution prescribes that ban of the assembly can be conducted only from case to case, based on the assumption of safety risk, not in advance.
The “sight and sound” principle is one of the key principles of Guidelines on Freedom of peaceful assembly by Venice Commission, which implies that public assemblies are held in order to convey the message to state bodies, particular target person, group or organisation. Hence, it is the privilege of organisers to decide which location will best suit the purpose of their assembly, and competent bodies should not impose bans founded on the qualification of locations to “adequate” and “inadequate”, which restrictively limits the public speech.
We urge the Ministry of Interior to seek the advice of experts for international standards of human right to freedom of peaceful assembly before making any amendments to laws.
Stevo Muk, President of Managing Board, Institute alternativa (IA)
Daliborka Uljarević, Executive director, Centre for Civic Education (CCE)
Vanja Ćalović, Executive director, Network for the affirmation of NGO sector (NANS)
Ana Novaković, Executive director, Centre for Development of NGOs (CDNGO)
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
Following the reaction by the Ministry of Interior (MoI) which shows us that it is not giving up on announced amendments to the Law on public assemblies and public performances, but still without any concrete arguments, Institute Alternative points out that each amendment to the legal regulation, especially those which would reduce that scope of human rights, should be started only after thorough analysis of the impact of the regulation in force.
According to FOS data, since the beginning of the year the Ministry of Interior (MoI) started 32 disciplinary procedures against police officers. Is this number illustrative of the fact that the accountability system in this department is functional? FOS talked about this and other topics to Dina Bajramspahić from Institute Alternative, who is a member of the working group for drafting the Law on Internal Affairs.
