Panel discussion “Police – Integrated Body, Yes or No?
Government Hiding the Dynamic Plan
Despite the Government’s persistent boasting about participation of civil society in Montenegrin negotiations, it continues to create parallel negotiating structure and parallel documents besides those already in force, excluding NGOs from its preparation and monitoring.
Having established the Council for Rule of Law as a parallel structure to the Working Groups for Chapters 23 and 24, which serve completely the same purpose, in February 2018, the Government of Montenegro adopted the Dynamic Plan of Work on Interim and Closing Benchmarks in EU-Montenegro Negotiating Chapters [1].
Since the contents of the Plan are not known, it is not clear how this document relates to the Action Plans for Chapters 23 and 24 and other documents in force, nor whether new measures are envisaged that would stimulate the implementation of benchmarks.
Although Montenegro is the first country to include representatives of non-governmental organisations in the formal negotiating structure, namely Working Groups for negotiation chapters, NGOs are not (publicly) invited to participate in the preparation, even for chapters that they work on as formal members of working groups. This also applies to the area of rule of law (Chapters 23 and 24).
Despite the fact that no reason can be found for this document not to be available, the Ministry of European Affairs did not submit the Plan to the Institute Alternative in April this year. The Ministry of Justice, as a body in charge of reforms in Chapter 23, also failed to submit the Plan to IA. Instead, it forwarded the request to the MEA, although it is factually in possession of this document.
Although there are no grounds for this document to be unavailable to citizens, it is paradoxical that it is also unavailable for full members of the Working Groups, even those members who have signed a Confidentiality Statement by which they committed to keeping data in accordance with the law, as is the case with the IA representative. Thus, the members of Working groups coming from NGOs have once again been put at a disadvantage.
At the meeting of the NGO representatives with the new Chief Negotiator held on June 12, IA raised all of the mentioned issues concerning transparency and Government’s persistent efforts to marginalise NGOs and prevent them from following and contributing to the negotiations. However, nothing has been done to date.
It is also interesting that the Government envisaged that the Ministry of European Affairs will “inform the Government on the monthly basis about the implementation of the Dynamic Plan”. From February 2018 to the end of June 2018, there were no reports and information on the implementation of the Dynamic Plan on the Government’s agenda, and the Ministry of European Affairs Ministry has been abolished in the meantime.
Dina Bajramspahić
Public Policy Researcher and a member of the Working Group for Chapter 23 “Judiciary and Fundamental Rights”
[1] Information on the Special Government Session during which the Dynamic Plan was adopted (held on 16th February 2018) http://www.predsjednik.gov.me/vijesti/181768/Vlada-odrzala-Posebnu-sjednicu-na-temu-Evropske-agende-ispunjavanje-obaveza-evropske-integracije-duznost-je-svih-segmenata-drust.html
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
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
Low Value Procurement in Montenegro: Without Transparency or Competition
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.
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.
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.
Institute Alternative Team