PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM MONITORING IN BiH: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS IN THE AREAS OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND INTEGRITY 2015-2016

This document has been prepared under the Public Administration Reform Monitoring (PARM) project, implemented by TI BiH and CIN, with financial support from the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and the Government of Denmark. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of TI BiH and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of SIDA or the Government of Denmark.

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

Transparency International in BiH, with financial support from the Swedish International Development Agency and the Government of Denmark and as part of the project Public Administration Reform Monitoring in BiH (PARM), prepares annual reports on public administration reform. This monitoring report looks at the results achieved by public administration in the areas of transparency, accountability and integrity in the 2015-2016 period.

This monitoring covered a sample of 25 institutions each from the state and entity levels of government and institutions of the Brčko District, but a large number of institutions did not provide the requested information about their work. Analysis was made of all the information collected through questionnaires completed by representatives of the institutions, all available reports of the institutions, audit reports and relevant regulations governing these areas.

In order to determine the extent to which public administration institutions apply the standards of transparency, accountability and integrity, indicators were identified on the basis of which to measure the existence and enforcement of these standards. Transparency indicators gauge the existence of practice of preparing and disclosing relevant documents (reports, plans, etc.) that are essential for the work of the institution, as well as the institution’s responsiveness to citizens in terms of proactive and reactive transparency. Accountability indicators show the extent to which accountability lines and mechanisms function within the institution. Also, these indicators show the extent to which the institution is accountable to other institutions to which it is by law obliged to report, as well as how accountable it is to the general public. Integrity indicators show whether the institution recognises external and internal risks of irregularities, and the extent to which it acts proactively to eliminate them.

KEY FINDINGS

• In the total sample of 14 institutions at the state level it was found that in the two-year reference period there were as many as 148 disciplinary proceedings, of which the largest number were in two institutions. In the sample of 12 FBiH institutions that provided data, as many as eight institutions did not bring any disciplinary proceedings in the reference period. Of the nine institutions in RS, five did not institute any disciplinary proceedings, and the remaining four institutions initiated a total of only six disciplinary proceedings.
• In the state-level institutions covered in this survey, there were a total of 22 lawsuits filed by third persons and 23 lawsuits filed by employees. The aggregate value of lawsuits was to the tune of KM 10,838.21, but many of the lawsuits are still pending and the estimated total value remains unknown for now. Of the 12 institutions at the FBiH level, 11 were sued by third parties or their own employees. The reasons for lawsuits brought by employees mainly concern payment of outstanding debts arising from employment. What is worrying, though, is the fact that in three institutions all lawsuits had a negative outcome for the institution. In the FBiH institutions covered by the monitoring, the value of lawsuits so far has totalled around KM 19,024.397. In RS, of the nine institutions, six were sued by third parties or employees, with the total number of lawsuits reaching 44, of which most were brought by third parties. The value of the lawsuits so far has been estimated at around KM 32,000.00.
• The extremely large number of requests for access to information at all government levels suggests that institutions continue to underutilise new technologies, i.e. that the concept of proactive transparency is not the dominant model in the practical implementation of the principle of transparency. The most commonly requested information concerns employment, procurement plans, performance appraisal reports, etc.
• The majority of state-level institutions do not routinely prepare and publish citizens budgets, and only three of the 14 institutions publish their budgets on their official websites. In FBiH of the 12 institutions analysed, the practice of publishing an analytical budget exists in only one institution. Analytical budget, citizens budget and/or special presentations of the budget exist in only three institutions in RS.
• At the state level, only four of the 14 institutions routinely publish the staffing plans on their official websites. Based on collected information, staffing plans are revised frequently and on an as-needed basis, and a large number of positions remain unfilled. At the FBiH level staffing plans are revised even more frequently than at the state level, with one institution having revised its staffing plan as many as eight times in the last eight years. In RS the situation is somewhat different as, other than through publication in the Official Gazette, the majority of staffing plans are available through other means of communication too. Similarly, though, revisions are as frequent [as on other government levels] and are undertaken on an as-needed basis.
• Audit offices at all levels of government have conducted special performance audits, focusing on temporary service contracts and how they are managed and planned. The findings reveal that there is no routine planning, no control mechanisms to ensure the quality of services delivered under such contracts, as well as no clear procedures and rules governing the use of temporary service contracts by public authorities. Audit recommendations for all government levels concern mainly human resource management, public procurement procedures and temporary service contracts.
• Five of the 14 state-level institutions have a Plan of Services that are subject to service contracting, and the total amount spent by the surveyed institutions on these contracts is KM 966,573.00, or KM 69,040.00 per institution. Five of the 11 FBiH institutions have a Plan of Services in place, which they use for planning temporary service contracts. The total number of temporary service contracts in the reference period was 270, or about 25 per institution. The total amount of money spent is KM 668,685.76, or an average of KM 60,789.61 per institution. In RS, of the nine institutions, only one has a Plan of Services in place, with the aggregate value of contracts to the tune of KM 195,424.88, or an average of KM 24,428.11 per institution.
• At lower levels of government all institutions do not routinely disclose their procurement plans on their websites.
• Unlike the state-level institutions, not all institutions at lower levels of government have Integrity Plans in place. In fact, of the 12 FBiH institutions, only four have adopted the Integrity Plans in the two-year reference period. Of the nine institutions in RS, none adopted the Integrity Plan, but three are currently drafting it.
• Of the 14 institutions at the state level, four do not routinely disclose their annual reports on their official websites. Three of the nine institutions in FBiH and three of the eight institutions in RS do not publish their annual reports on their websites.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Harmonise the penal policy in disciplinary proceedings at all levels by enacting consistent and uniform disciplinary measures.
• Analyse the reasons why lawsuits are brought against institutions and devise measures and activities to reduce the number of lawsuits with a view to cutting the litigation costs.
• Institutions are advised to disclose more information on their official websites and to make use of modern technologies to establish a new information sharing practice.
• It is necessary to ensure proactive transparency of the entire budget cycle and explicitly provide for mandatory proactive disclosure of budget cycle information in a form that is accessible and understandable to citizens.
• In preparing staffing plans, institutions should keep in mind the strategic documents and general commitment of the public administration based on the principles of efficiency and effectiveness. This would mean that a carefully prepared staffing plan should take into account existing capacities and that each position should be analysed such to verify whether its existence is warranted. Staffing plans should result from a long-term planning of human resources and should not be developed in an unplanned manner or on an “as-needed basis”.
• Ensure that audit reports are published on the official websites of the institutions and that audit recommendation implementations plans are routinely made publicly accessible.
• Ensure that all levels of government have clearly define framework rules and procedures with regard to temporary service contracts based on the principle of administrative transparency, and reduce the current expenditure levels for such contracts.
• Ensure that audit recommendations are acted upon, in particular those relating to public procurement procedures, and that all public procurement plans are made publicly accessible.
• All institutions should adopt Integrity Plans as envisaged under the relevant strategic documents. It is necessary to monitor the implementation of recommendations under the Plans and to improve or establish the practice of their presentation to the general public.
• It is necessary to introduce mandatory proactive disclosure of institutions’ annual reports by way of appropriate statutory or regulatory provisions.
• Devise a clearly defined recruitment monitoring and analysis system for a specific time period with a view to establishing whether the achieved recruitment dynamics is in accordance with the set objectives.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS IN THE AREAS OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND INTEGRITY 2015-2016