Posted on

What does the Report of the European Commission shows: No Progress in the Reform of Managing the Public Finances

State Audit Institution cannot carry out the tasks in its current composition, legal amendments in the area of ​​public procurement caused stagnation, while civil society should be more involved in the monitoring of Public Finance Management Reform Programme – these are the conclusions from the European Commission’s Report for Montenegro.

By fulfilling the Chapter 32 – Financial Control, Montenegro has made limited progress and is moderately prepared in this period. However, comparing to results achieved in 2015 and 2016, when there was good progress achieved in this chapter, now Montenegro backslides. In Chapter 32, areas where the good progress was made are internal and external audits.

Photo: Foundation for Economic Education
Photo: Foundation for Economic Education

When it comes to internal audit, noted progress is reflected in the fact that most public sector bodies set up internal audit. Progress is also reflected in strengthening the capacity of internal auditors by their attending of the training courses, aligned with international standards of auditing. Most internal audit unit have adopted strategic and annual internal audit plans. The number of recommendations and the level of their implementation are increasing. Although most public sector bodies have set up internal audits, they don’t meet the required legal requirements. The European Commission doesn’t further elaborate on this state of affairs.

When it comes to external audit, the capacities of State Audit Institution remain problematic, as the European Commission estimated, so the SAI cannot perform a large amount of work in its current composition. Some of the innovations in the SAI’s work, are noted in the report, and relate to the adoption of the new SAI Strategic Development Plan 2018-2020. When it comes to audit quality, SAI has adopted the methodology from auditing Final Budget Account of Montenegro, a new manual for auditing success, as well as guidelines for auditing quality control. The compatible ISSAI methodology, which auditors need to handle in their work, is not yet fully developed. When it comes to the impact of state audit, the European Commission points out that the SAI rarely submits individual reports to Parliament, and refers to the fact that only 5 of 41 reports were submitted to Parliament in 2016, while on the other hand there is a limited use of SAI’s report by the Parliament.

In addition to internal and external audit, in the area of ​​financial control, ie public finance management, the European Commission also evaluates Public Internal Financial Control (PIFC). Within this area, Commission recommends further efforts to strengthen the managerial accountability of subordinate bodies in the public sector, as well as to work on medium-term strategic planning that is not linked to the government’s work program. Annual plans and reports are focused on the activity process by itself, but not on aims and measurable indicators. Internal financial control is not equally represented, although several institutions have adopted annual internal financial management and control action plans. The report states that Central Budget Inspectorate doesn’t have enough staff and is not fully operational.

The amendments of the Public Procurement Law from June 2017 are not harmonised with EU rules, so the European Commission noted backsliding. The amendments are adopted without public consultation, don’t recognise low-value procurement, as well as defence and security procurement, and introduce several exceptions which are not recognised by EU legal principles.

In this report, the European Commission noted the lack of systematic involvement of civil society in monitoring the implementation of the Public Financial Management Reform Programme 2016-2020. The European Commission also noted that budget units do not proactively publish budget information, and that it is necessary to improve budget drafts and budget accounts in terms of quality and comprehensiveness. In addition to highlighting the progress made by European Commission on budgetary transparency in Montenegro, it also emphasises the need to further strengthen transparency through Montenegro’s participation in the Open Budget Index as well as the development of a “citizen budget”.

Report for Montenegro 2018, published by the European Commission on 17 April 2018 is available here.

Institute Alternative Team

Posted on

Capital City – Simulator of cooperation with NGOs

‘’The Capital City Podgorica is establishing good cooperation with NGOs”, but only on paper, as confirmed at yesterdays panel discussion ”Strong Communities”, organized by the Center for Development of NGOs.

Yesterdays event, realized as a forum for citizens and marked by a discussion on the topic of civic activism, sought to answer the question: How can we, as a civil society, cooperate with local authorities and how can citizens affect decision-making in their city? Unfortunately, the answers and complaints came only from citizens and non-governmental organisations, while local authorities remained silent. The Capital City representatives yesterday confirmed that they do not know the ways citizens can be animated to participate in the decision-making process, but only know how to promote projects and investments in the Capital City.

Representative of the Local Administration Secretariat, said yesterday that the Capital announced four public invitations for cooperation and partnership with non-governmental organizations.  The Institute Alternative applied to one of these four invitations and became part of the Working Group for drafting a decision on the Capital City budget for 2018. Apart from this formality, the working group did not function, and the draft of the budget was delivered to us at the same time it was published  for the purposes of public debate.

According to the Secretary of the Secretariat for Finance of the Capital City, such working group ‘’did not and could not exist”.

Institute Alternative has already warned the public of this kind of pretence of cooperation by the Capital City, when our participation in the working group was stultified, and we were faced with a fait accompli.

This simulation of cooperation has shown us that there is no communication and coordination among the local administration bodies, when it comes to cooperation with the civil sector. Also, it became clear that working groups do not operate for the help and constructive cooperation with civil sector, but for raising the statistics on the openess of local authorities, in particular the Local Administration Secretariat and the Secretariat for Finance, as well as that there has not been any accountability for this behavior.

When asked if she thinks that the goal is fulfilled by publishing an invitation for the working group by the Local Administration Secretariat, although the working group did not exist, we were left without answer from the representative of the Local Administration Secretariat.

This second attempt to simulate cooperation between the Capital City and the Institute Alternative is concerning and makes us wonder – is there any use in applying for public invitations which the Capital City uses for the mere statistics, regardless of the fulfillment of the goal itself? The goal in this case is cooperation between local authorities and a non-governmental organization on an act that is essential for the citizens of our city – the annual budget.

Yesterdays discussion also showed us the lack of knowledge and ideas among local administration officers on how to raise the interest among citizens in the decision –making process on the local level.

We expect more from our local administrations, especially from the Capital City, and we hope that instead of empty phrases, the principles of openness and public participation, will be put into function of essential cooperation between local authorities and citizens.

Ivana Bogojević

Public policy researcher

Posted on

EC Report for Montenegro in Regard to Civil Sector: Formal Conditions Partially Met, No Genuine Consultation

European Commission Report for Montenegro, in the part relating to civil society, confirmed that formal conditions for cooperation between government and NGOs have been met, but that besides formal participation of NGOs in working bodies, conditions should be created for their genuine consultation.

We believe that the document lacks some key findings which marked the year behind us; first of all, increasingly intensive campaigns against critically oriented NGOs and direct undermining of their freedom of expression, as well as unprecedented illegal acting of the Parliament of Montenegro which rendered meaningless the existing procedures for election of NGO representatives to advisory bodies.
In short, EC confirmed what we have been saying for several years – the Government is establishing formal conditions for work and acting of NGOs, but these laws, decrees and strategies are continuously not implemented in the prescribed manner.

The need to ensure genuine participation of NGOs in working groups and negotiation process is reiterated three times, by which EC is assessing the quality of this process, not merely the quantity. This approach is encouraging, since it sends a clear message to the Government, if it wishes to read it correctly, that laws, strategies, decrees and advisory bodies should be implemented and functional. Otherwise, mere listing of these mechanisms cannot make Brussels believe that cooperation with NGOs is truly established.

We remind of the most recent example in this regard – passing of Strategy for Enhancing Conducive Environment for Activities of the Non-Governmental Organizations 2018-2020. NGOs did not participate in its and it does not contain any substantive measures in this area. Of all comments received from NGOs, the Government included one in the Strategy, partially.

Unfortunately, this report did not include a segment which was repeated in the previous two reports, regarding campaigns for discrediting non-governmental activists. During 2017, these campaigns were continued, even with greater intensity, against critically oriented NGOs, directly undermining their freedom of expression.

Some of the examples are articles and TV reports presented for months in media under direct control of the ruling party, directed against organisations which legitimately and with sound arguments pointed out the illegal dismissals of members of the RTCG Council.

During 2017, there were repeated texts in Pobjeda of alleged savings worth 46 millions of EUR on NGOs’ bank accounts, although we have denounced this in due manner, by pointing out that Central Bank classifies international organisations, as well as diplomatic missions, as NGOs.

The Report notes adoption of Amendments to the Law on NGOs and establishment of new system for financing projects. However, it was not noted that the Government has ultimately enabled state officials to participate in evaluation of these projects, which is entirely contrary to the requests of the large part of NGO sector, and which could render the entire process meaningless.

In the previous period we heard Government representatives saying on several occasions that the Report will in a certain way serve as a roadmap in all the areas it covers. It is hard for us to believe that the Government will change its relation to non-governmental sector in this climate, since in the period behind us we have not seen on a single occasion a desire for substantial changes.

Civil society certainly will not be a decor in the process of European integration of Montenegro. In this year, we will continue to point out to all the problems that non-governmental sector faces in its work and activities, as well as to propose solutions in that area.

NGOs Coalition “Cooperating Towards Goal” currently brings together 99 non-governmental organisations from all over Montenegro and represents the largest organised coalition of NGOs in the country

Ana Novaković
President of the Managing Board

Posted on

Public administration re/form – availability of public services or administrative stumbling?

Public administration reform is aimed at introducing necessary changes in order to enable accessibility of public services to all the citizens, i.e. participation in decision-making process based on transparency, removal of administrative and other barriers, faster business, available prices and equal conditions for all. This is certainly a multifaceted and interconnected process and citizens must not only be an objects of rights and passive users of the reform outcomes.

Persons with disabilities should be in focus of the public administration reform and all its principles, particularly within the principle of service delivery for marginalised groups, not only because they the public services beneficiaries, but also their financiers.

In a special focus on reform of public administration and all its principles, and so with regard to the principle of public services of a marginalized groups, in this case persons with disabilities must be in focus, not only because they are users of public services, but also and their financiers.

However, if we consider segments of public administration in terms of accessibility of public services in the context of Montenegrin administration or even legislation, we must not leave out the fact that jurisdiction for providing and accessibility of services for persons with disabilities is not defined. Attempts to determine jurisdiction for this issue when passing the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Persons with Disabilities, and later preparation of the Analysis of the compliance of Montenegrin regulations with the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1), were reduced on discussion without the conclusion – nothing was defined. Even more, accessibility as a specific right (2)  guaranteed for people with disabilities was reduced to accessibility of physical environment and traffic, while information and communication remained narrowly defined, while services have been simply omitted because none of the persons responsible for providing them understood what this principle and right means in practice.

In the context of the rights of persons with dissabilities, it is important to understand that all public services could be available to disabled person, but not simultaneously accessible, if accessibility as a precondition for their use is ignored or omitted (3).

I will explain this on the example of realization of one of the basic citizens’ rights in democratic society –  right to elect and to be elected, i.e. right to vote, the most powerful democratic mean and weapon of citizens, the one from which representatives of the people we elect should be afraid of us, and not, conversely, us afraid of them. Not so low number of disabled persons are deprived of this right, while for others it is limited, and I can conclude that there is almost no disabled person who is entitled to this right without any barriers.

For disabled persons to which this right is guaranteed and to some extent enabled, in practice the process looks like a “good” night mare.

To exercise the right to vote it is necessary to have personal documents: identity card and/or passport. This implies going to the local security center  in our residence town, where the following application should be submitted: application completed on the prescribed form, excerpt from the birth register, certificate of citizenship and photo taken on the spot. However,  the security centers’ premisses are not accessible for most of disabled persons, the application form must be completed with ballpoint pen, while the form itself is not adjusted to a certain number of people with disabilities. Experiences show that some disabled persons are being photographed in front of the security centers’ premises, where they also fill out the necessary forms and take over their identity card. Still, they pay the same price for that service like all other citizens, and are treated as being provided with “additional service”.

For visually impaired persons or persons with one or without both hands, the process of filling the forms and signing the papers when taking over their identitiy cards is a special procedure. Some desibled persons were not aloud to sign the papers in a way which is suitable for them, nor to, if they can, put  a finger print. In such cases, officers of the security centers have put and they  continue to put the label of illiteracy. In that way someone with university degree is being marked as illiterate.

All this, indeed, persons with disabilities can also do at home, but only by paying additional service. Besides the fact that they have not been given the equal and unobstructed services and procedures, they need to pay additional services, compared to other citizens.  Therefore, “procedural or reasonable adaptation”, in this case, represents discrimination based on disability because they predict different and unfavorable treatment for persons with disabilities, thus creating a false impression that they contribute to the exercise of procedural rights. The State, avoiding responsibility for existence of barriers, states that: “services within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior (MoI) are carried out at home and with the help of mobile teams, due to the inability of the clients to personally submit requests, including the proxy of the person who will take actions on behalf of the client”.

The same goes for electoral right on election day – inaccessible polling stations, polling booth and box, followed by incredible violations of the law, such as “enabling” voting in front of pooling station, violating secrecy and immediacy of voting, inserting a ballot on behalf of the voter or lowering the box, either way violating the law. Though this right we can perform from our homes too, rested in the armchair all the day waiting for electoral board who already knows for who we are going to vote in advance, and it lasts and lasts until the reforms passes, and we get stuck in processes that should bring us closer to a modern, faster and more efficient administration. Nobody bothered to calculate our time, while our dignity was reformed by others.

Marina Vujačić

Activist for rights of persons with disabilities

The blog is produced within a project “Civil Society for Good Governance: To Act and Account!” implemented by Institute Alternative, Bonum, Natura, New Horizon and Center for Investigative Journalism, funded by the European Union within Civil Society Facility Programm  and the Balkan Trust for Democracy, a project of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. (GMF). The contents of the report are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the donors.

(1) The Analysis of the compliance of Montenegrin regulations with the Law on Prohibition of the Discrimination of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is produced as an obligation of the Government of Montenegro regarding the Conclusion of the Parliament of Montenegro adopted upon passing the Law on Prohibition of the Discrimination of Persons with Disabilities, at a session held on June 26, 2015.

 (2) Accessibility is the special right of persons with disabilities guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and includes accessibility of the built physical environment and facilities, information and communication, traffic, ITC and services.

 (3) Availability of services implies developed and ensured public services used by all the citizens, or special services designed for persons with disability, while accessibility implies possibility of access and use of this services by persons with different types of disabilities in the place, time and form, as well as to the extent which suits them most.

Posted on

Resignations of police executives

Comment of our researcher Dina Bajramspahic for daily newspaper ‘’Dan’’, on the reasons for the resignations of the former Director of the Police and Chief of the Center of Security in Podgorica, as well as other issues regarding the personnel policy of the Police:

I do not know if the resignations of the Director of the Police and the Chief of the Center of Security were really a moral act due to the sense of personal responsibility, or they were extorted. However, when it comes to the chief of the Center of Security, it is formally and legally impossible to resign this position at all, because the chiefs of the centers are not public officials, but civil servants. Although we are used to chiefs submitting ‘’resignations’’ because they work at important positions in the iPolice – they can only quit their job, not resign.

Public officials in the Police are only the Director and the four Deputy Directors. All police officers, including the chiefs, are civil servants. According to the current legislation, the Director of the Police can temporarily and/or permanently reassign the chiefs to another position when dissatisfied with their work. This leaves a huge space for discretionary decision making, so we have a practice that a group of executives is ‘’moving’’ from one managerial position in Police to another, for years. However, this is no longer easy as it was, because there is a growing number of former executives who do not have anywhere to be ‘’transfered’’ and so they remain unassigned.

For example, the former Chief of the Security Center in Podgorica and the former Director of the Police, now have nowhere to be assigned because all jobs with their rank, which is the highest one (chief police inspector), are already filled. This is happening because there is higher number of high titles than the high job positions.

The bad thing is that there is no practice of explaining decisions that are very important for the overall functioning in the Police, so we do not know which are the reasons for choosing someone and for replacing others. In the long run, this creates dissatisfaction and the lack of conviction that they have chosen the best ones, based on their merit. Therefore, in the Working Group for the preparation of the Law of Internal Affairs, we advocated that the leaders in the Police are selected through an internal vacancy, and not by the free will of the Director who can assign (and replace) them at any time. The essence of this proposal is that all candidates who fulfill the requirements and think that they can perform this job responsibly, get the chance to apply and ‘’be compared’’ to other candidates. In the end, of course, the decisions will continue to be made by the director, because he is responsible for the overall work of the Service. However, he will have to choose from the ranking list to which all interested candidates, with the results of work, will be represented. Another very important issue is the issue of the mandate. The director was protected by a mandate and could not be dismissed as easily as other executives in the Police. Therefore, if the decision of the internal vacancy is adopted, managers elected in this manner should also a receive a mandate by amending the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees. This does not mean that they will not be responsible if their work results are unsatisfactory, but it means that this must be prescribed by the law as the reasons for the dismissal and that they should be dismissed only according to that. All these issues have been inadequately regulated for years and have led to a very chaotic human resource management in the Police, which has an impact on its overall performance. Every day, some officials are praised, and then the next day we see them dismissed. Because of all of the shifts in the Police, I do not have great expectations, usually everything remains is as it was before.

Posted on

Montenegro – Reform Leader or Reform Simulacrum

Montenegro - Reform Leader or Reform Simulacrum

Six years since the start of accession negotiations, Montenegro is still a showcase of state capture. In the same manner it has been exhausting domestic democratic public for decades, Montenegrin Government masterfully applies the exhaustion strategy to the process of European integration, abusing the EU’s need for a new integration optimism.

Citizens cannot see progress in curbing the entanglement of public and ruling party’s interests, or in dismantling the links with organised crime and corruption at all levels of the government. Weak and politicised institutions, impunity for the corrupted officials and misuse of public funds, state interference into media market and jeopardizing of the independence of public broadcaster feat by ruling Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), hostile actions towards critically oriented NGOs and targeting its leaders — all of them are still alive and well in Montenegro, Western Balkans “frontrunner” toward EU.

Hence, a key question in the EU-Montenegro relations must be answered — will the EU keep turning a blind eye to the absence of track record, perseverance of old and introduction of new undemocratic practices?

Accolades for the progress, as well as the persistent emphasis of the “leadership in the region” fail to motivate the authorities to do more and to do better. They also neither strengthen nor meaningfully include civil society, media and democratic opposition interested in reforms.

No one in Montenegro expects the EU to change the government or influence political developments in that respect. However, it is reasonable for the promoters of European integration to expect the European Commission (EC) to credibly demonstrate that a candidate country can earn leadership status and achieve progress by no means other than political will and implementation of reforms that deliver sustainable results.

It is about time that good neighbourly relations and constructive foreign policy, aligned with the EU and confirmed by the NATO membership, do not stand as major indicators of the country’s success and cease to be a trade-off for ever-growing need for the internal democratic reforms.

This paper presents a series of examples illustrating failure or facade of reforms in the key areas of rule of law, including the lack of follow up to electoral frauds, inflated statistics which mimics the lack of substantial results in the fight against organised crime and corruption, and selective approach of key anti-corruption institutions. They demonstrate a need for a different attitude of the European Union towards Montenegro, which would prevent authorities from faking reforms and make them deliver results needed for the lasting societal change.