Posted on

Municipalities To Open Its Budgets For Citizens

A third of Montenegrin municipalities do not report on citizens’ participation in public discussions on their budgets; available data show that citizens generally did not participate in budget discussions for this year, with the exception of the municipalities of Bar, Plav and Žabljak.

There were no citizens at public discussion on local budgets for 2018 in Podgorica, Cetinje, Petnjica and Šavnik. According to information collected by the Institute Alternative for the second consecutive year, citizens in these municipalities did not take part in the public discussions on the budget for 2017 either.

We recall that the budget of the Capital City for 2018 is worth almost 3.5 million euros more than last year’s budget, so there is a need for the administration to inform citizens more proactively about conducting public discussions.

Seven Municipalities do not report at all on citizens’ participation. These are the municipalities of Budva, Tivat, Herceg Novi, Pljevlja, Plužine, Andrijevica and Gusinje.

Among the municipalities reporting on the participation of citizens, the municipality of Bar stands out with a high number of citizens attending the public discussion (174). Plav and Žabljak Municipalities also attracted a significant number of citizens in proportion to their size – 24 and 15 respectively.

On the other hand, Ulcinj and Nikšić municipalities, which attracted more persons during the discussion on the budget for 2017, failed to keep this practice when discussing this year’s budget. Thus, in the Ulcinj Municipality, only 10 citizens participated in the public discussion on 2018 budget, and only two citizens in the Municipality of Nikšić.

The reason for a large number of participants in the Bar Municipality is the organization of several public discussions in local communities for different target groups.

Besides common mechanisms that municipalities use to inform citizens about public discussions on the annual budget, such as daily press, local media, notice boards, telephone communications or eventual informing in municipal offices, local authorities must create new ways of communicating with citizens. This can be backed by social networks, through which citizens can communicate more frequently with their municipality and make suggestions, proposals and questions about the way in which their money is spent.

For more active citizens’ participation, genuine understanding of planned annual spending is of crucial importance, which municipalities could achieve through “budget for citizens”, a platform that will bring financial management in their town closer to citizens and engage them in public discussions where they can give their contribution.

Through the development of participatory budgeting of capital budgets in municipalities, citizens would also have a direct influence on the development of capital investment in their city.

Data on citizens’ participation was collected in the framework of the project “Money Watch – Civil Society Guarding the Budget”. The project is implemented by the Institute Alternative, the New Horizon and the Institute for Public Finance, and financed by the European Union.

Within the project we will continue to monitor the management of public finances and advocate for higher public trust in efficiency of public spending.

Ivana Bogojević
Public Policy Researcher

Posted on

Procrastination and Repetition of Procedures: Main Enemy of Citizen-Centric Administration

Without systematic monitoring of administrative procedures and disputes, we don’t know to what extent the fight against main enemies of citizen-centric administration will be effective, said Milena Milošević at today’s panel discussion.

The panel discussion named “Citizen-Centric Public Administration” was organised by the United Nations Development Programme in Montenegro and the Ministry of Public Administration as part of the International Day of Public Administration.

Milena Milošević, our public policy researcher who participated in the discussion, reminded that the Institute Alternative asked the citizens questions that the Government failed to propose during the development of the current Public Administration Reform Strategy.

Inter alia, we asked them how much they trust their public administration, and what are the main issues.

“Public opinion research showed that the first two years of implementation of the Strategy didn’t reflect on increase of citizens trust in public administration – it remained at the same level,” she explained adding that about half of population expressed scepticism or said that they trust in principle.

“Citizens, when it comes to public administration issues, are mostly worried about nepotism – Milošević said, and emphasised that now, when we are starting a implementation of the new laws on civil servants and employees and on local self-government, all competent institutions should show a more proactive attitude towards the consistent implementation of the new solutions.

She explained that a comprehensive system for monitoring new legal framework should clearly point out potential abuses and allow corrective actions to be taken, in order to not end up with another, new wave of laws, which are suppressed by the old practices.

“This year, the Government has the opportunity to show respect of opinion of citizens by consulting them during the drafting of public service quality index,” added Milošević.

She reminded that Institute Alternative piloted certain efforts in measuring the quality of services, which was noted in international reports on the fulfilment of European principles regarding public administration in Montenegro, but also pointing out that our efforts cannot compensate the absence of similar efforts by the Government.

Milošević emphasised that the relations between the administration and citizens largely depends on the implementation of the Law on Administrative Procedure and Administrative Dispute.

In a publication named “Let’s talk about effects!” warned that a comprehensive system of monitoring implementation of these laws is not envisaged at all, so that we can check with certainty how effective the fight against main enemies of citizens is in their contact with the administration – and these are procrastination and repetition of procedures through so-called ping pong effect.

“Namely, there is no explicit obligation, not even within the strategic framework, to systematically monitor the merits, final decision-making and duration of administrative disputes, not only in individual stages of court proceedings, or from the first instance to the highest instance, but also in a broader sense – from the beginning of the administrative procedure, that is dispute, until the final decision made “, Milošević explained, recommending that systematic monitoring of decision-making in administrative proceedings and disputes includes as an indicator of how much our administration is really citizens centric.

IA Team

Posted on

Low Value Procurement in Montenegro: Without Transparency or Competition

The subject of this analysis is low value procurement – a new non-transparent and uncompetitive procedure introduced under the amendments to the Public Procurement Law since June 2017. Even though public procurement are recognised as particularly prone to corruption, and the Government promises improvement of transparency and competitiveness of this part of public expenditure through all reports and strategic documents, its acts show the opposite.

By introducing low value procurement, a part of the budget spent through non-transparent procedures doubled. Over 28 million EUR was spent on low value procurement only in the second half of 2017. Low value procurement is characterised by wide discretion of the contracting authorities, while the Law prescribes only value thresholds of this procurement. The procedures for these procurement are determined by the internal acts of the contracting authorities and they apply for procuring goods and services the estimated value up to 15,000 EU and works the estimated value up to 30,000 EUR.

No ministry or municipality adopted an internal act for low value procurement within the deadline foreseen by the Public Procurement Law. Most ministries and municipalities have not foreseen in their internal acts the obligation of publishing concluded contracts, which additionally endangers transparency.

In order to prevent the share of money spent in direct agreements, away from public eyes, from growing further in the following years, it is necessary to adopt new solutions, at the level of laws and by-laws, which will be equally binding for all contracting authorities. These solutions should go in the direction of reducing space for discretion and arbitrariness of contracting authorities, higher availability and openness of data on low value procurement, and improvement of competitiveness.

Posted on

Public-Private Partnerships and Concessions

Proposed Solutions Carry Corruption Risk

Exclusion of public-private partnerships of low value from the Law and the establishment of two registers for public-private partnerships, instead of one in which all data would be available, as well as the wide range of reasons for avoiding public call for concessions, does not give confidence that the proposed solutions would indeed contribute to the prevention of corruption in these sensitive areas.

Institute Alternative submitted comments on the Draft Law on Public Private Partnerships and the Draft Amendments to the Law on Concessions.

Both drafts have been put up for public discussion without accompanying explanations, so it is not clear why the proposers have opted for certain solutions. There is still plenty of room for improvement and harmonisation with other regulations, especially with the Law on Public Procurement and the Law on State Administration.

Public-Private Partnership

The Draft Law on Public-Private Partnership (PPP) contains several very problematic solutions.

In the first place, it is proposed that this Law should not apply to public-private partnership projects worth less than five million euros. Based on the bad experience and consequences of introducing small value procurement in the Law on Public Procurement, we believe that such a solution would also have a negative impact on public-private partnerships. The Draft Law on PPP stipulates that projects of this relatively small value will be regulated by a special Government act. This leaves a possibility for general principles of transparency and competitiveness to be negatively affected in the future, given the wide discretion of public contractors, which was also the case with small value procurement.

The Draft foresees establishment of two registries – Register of Public-Private Partnership Projects and Register of Public-Private Partnership Contracts. However, in order to ensure transparency, it is necessary to merge these two registers into a single one, so that it would be easy to find for each PPP project a corresponding contract, as well as other information related to project, obligations of public and private partner, etc.

Source: Investitor.me

Another problem with this Daft Law is that it is not even minimally aligned with the Law on Public Procurement. This is primarily the case with procedures related to the composition of Tender Committee, but also public procurement procedures that can be applied both to public procurement and public-private partnerships.

Finally, there is still space to regulate better numerous issues related to centralisation of public-private partnership competences in one institution – the Investment Agency. In the current Draft, status of the Agency is not entirely clear and it is necessary to further consider how to improve control in this area. Particular attention should be given to the accountability system, i.e. to whom this institution will answer and report to, and who will control its work. Bearing in mind that the new Law on State Administration is currently being prepared, it is a good time to fully align these regulations.

Concessions

Proposed solutions in the Draft Amendments to the Law on Concessions foresee public participation only in the discussion of the concession act. Accompanying documentation, such as advisability analysis of achieving public interest by granting a concession, is not put up for a public discussion, thus limiting participation of interested public and citizens in deciding on all concession awarding acts.

Source: EPCG

Further, the Draft provides a wide range of grounds for not publishing a public call in the concession awarding procedure. One of the exceptions stipulates that a public call does not have to be published if the state receives an “offer containing a technical-technological project solution and other elements on the basis of which public interest and economic advisability of the realisation of infrastructure and other needs of strategic importance for Montenegro can be assessed (… ), and awarding a concession in this way would accelerate the project realisation”.

This very complicated formulation practically means that every bidder can contact the authorities with the project proposal, and the state can award them a concession without any public call, plan, transparency, competitiveness, etc.

***

We call on law proposers – the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economy, as well as the Government and the Parliament, to reconsider solutions from the drafts of both laws before their adoption. We also call on the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption to give opinion on the degree to which these regulations are prone to corruption, which is one of its competencies.

In the framework of the project “Money Watch: Civil Society Guarding the Budget”, supported by the the European Union, Institute Alternative monitors the public finance management reform in Montenegro. Transparency of public spending and targeted spending of public money is one of the basic mechanisms for preventing corruption.

We recall that the improvement of the area of public-private partnership has been recognised as an area of particular risk for corruption in the Operational Document annexed to the Action Plan for Chapter 23 in the framework of negotiations with the European Union.

Consequently, primary purpose of adopting these long-awaited organic laws should be the improvement of transparency and prevention of corruption, rather than simplification and shortening of procedures, to the detriment of the integrity of law implementation.

Comments, objections and suggestions of Institute Alternative to the Draft Law on Public-Private Partnership (Only in Montenegrin)

Comments, objections and suggestions of Institute Alternative to the Draft Amendments to the Law on Concessions (Only in Montenegrin)

Institute Alternative Team

Posted on

Institute Alternative in Belfast: Monitoring Public Assemblies

Aleksandra Vavić and Ivana Bogojević, Public Policy Researchers at the Institute Alternative, participated in a training on observing of public assemblies, held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

The training was organized by the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) in the framework of the project “Monitoring Right To Free Assembly”, which aims to assess the environment for assembly in eleven countries: Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Albania, Kosovo, Armenia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine.

The focus of this training was monitoring of a parade organized by the Orange Order (Protestants), through mainly Catholic parts of Belfast, a city divided and characterized by conflicts between the two communities for years. In the process of preparation for the monitoring of the parade, participants held meetings with key actors: representatives of the Parades Commission, protests decision-making body and a representative of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Conversations were also held with a representative of the parade organiser, the Orange Order and their opponents, a representative of the Sinn Féin party. The parade gathered around 600 people, while several dozen people watched this gathering on the move.

Training was conducted with a view to observing public assemblies in all the countries where the project is being implemented, hence, the reports from assemblies in Montenegro will be an integral part of this year’s report for Montenegro within this project.

The project was launched by the International Center for Non-Profit Law (ICNL) through the Civic Space Initiative, with the support of the Government of Sweden, and presents a continuation of the 2016 and 2017 research that mapped the burning issues in the area of public assembly regarding legal framework and practical problem ranging from registration and banning of assemblies to policing them. The research resulted in a series of recommendations for the Ministry of the Interior, the Police Administration, independent control bodies and civil society.

Posted on

Why We Are Against the Proposed “Optimization” of Public Administration

Stevo Muk, a representative of Institute Alternative in the Inter-Departmental expert team, voted against the Draft Optimization Plan for Public Administration in Montenegro for the period 2018-2020.

The Draft Public Administration Optimization Plan is largely based on restricting employment until March 1st 2019,   non-extension of fixed-term contracts, retirement of employees who meet conditions, mutually agreed termination of employment and severance payments to employees interested in terminating employment in this manner.

Other measures are presented in a rather general terms, many of which are already provided by valid regulation and hence do not give an additional value to this document.

We recall, with the current Strategy for Public Administration Reform, the Government promised to reduce the number of public administration employees by 3 183 by 2020, in relation to 51 486 public administration employees at the end of 2017, whereby this number does not include public enterprises at the central level.

We believe that the envisaged general, horizontal measures might even hit the target, that is, the planned target value of reducing the number of employees, but they will not achieve the goal. Namely, substantial “optimization” should consist of transforming the administration in a way that it achieves its full functionality and maximum effectiveness.

Stevo Muk, President of the Managing Board of the Institute Alternative, in his statement regarding the draft document pointed out that the plan is not based on analysis of prior experiences and effects of same or similar measures previously implemented.

“Unfortunately, there is not even an estimate of the number of public sector employees who meet the retirement conditions,” he noted, recalling that this data exists only for state administration bodies.

“This plan does not give an answer to the question of whether employees who will end their employment in this way are the same ones whose work is not needed,” Muk said.

Publication: Enchanted Circle of Rationalisation

He stressed that in this way the public administration could find itself in a situation where those whose work is needed are among the cadre that terminates its employment in the proposed way, so in practice they will be engaged again in some other, less transparent manner.

These manners include significant employment of retired persons (even as heads of certain state institutions), through employment agencies and in other ways which were not uncovered in the analysis that should have preceded the adoption of the optimization plan.

It would be particularly difficult to ensure the implementation of measures on the local level, as the Government does not have mechanisms to follow the ban on employment, nor has the authority to impose this ban on local self-governments, besides the 16 municipalities that signed tax debt rescheduling agreement.

In its analysis “Enchanted Circle of Rationalization”, prepared within the framework of the project “Civil Society for Good Government: To Act and Account”, Institute Alternative presented lessons learned from previous attempts to downsize the number of employees in the Montenegrin public administration.

“In order to be successful, the optimization process of the public sector must be comprehensive”, as concluded in the analysis, with remark that exclusion of public enterprises at the central level, as well as of certain institutions (the Central Bank, the Armed Forces) from current optimization attempt is a major drawback, which could negatively impact the whole system.

“This is especially important for public enterprises that act as monopolies, which could become “sanctuaries” for those dismissed from the national and local administration”, reads the analysis.

Institute Alternative Team