Institute Alternative’s reaction to comments of Agency for prevention of corruption to our publication ‘’Happy New Agency!’’
We are taken by surprise with the attitude of the members of the Council of the Agency for prevention of Corruption stating that the Institute Alternative’s case study ‘’Happy New Agency’’ is ‘’badly argumented, unobjective and an orchestrated attack on the independent institution’’, particularly taking into account that such an estimation is not corroborated with responses concerning our analysis and facts. The Agency is therefore trying to give a negative evaluation of our organization without a single counterargument. It is true that our representatives participated in all Agency’s Council sessions that were open for public during last year, so a question arises as to what made the members of the Council be less ‘’generous’’ in 2016 by completely forbidding such mechanism of participation of interested parties that is foreseen by the Rules of Procedure.
Additionally troublesome are their instructions on obligatory use of ‘’table and graphic presentations’’ which would, according to the representatives of the Council of the Agency that have supported comments to our publication, contribute to its level of ‘’seriousness’’. Besides stating that the Institute Alternative as a scientific-research centre still had to fulfill some conditions in order to obtain its working licence, we would also like to inform the members of the Council that our publication does not have a goal of presenting the public opinion that was submitted to us as an example of a successful research. Nevertheless, as it is pointed out in the comments by the Agency for prevention of corruption, it is a matter of a methodological approach.
Finally, given that the signatories of the comments are interested in the matters of financing of the study ‘’Happy New Agency’’, we would like to inform the public that the publication is a result of a research of the Institute Alternative which was not financially supported. The mission of the civil sector is the democratisation of society, and it is not limited in a timely or financial manner. Unfortunately, this is not fully understandable to the director and the members of the Council of the Agency, given that their goal from the very beginning was to stop a objective monitoring and evaluation of the work of the Agency which has resulted in abolishing audio recording of the sessions, forbidding the presence of interested parties and an ad hoc defining of the criteria for participation in work which is not foreseen by the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, we consider that the Agency should pay due attention to the implementation of the law and bylaws, and not be persistent in attempts of their circumvention.
Remark: Clicking on the links below you can find our publication as well as the comments of the Agency
dr. Jovana MAROVIĆ
Research coordinator
