COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Centre of Expertise for
Good GovernanceAlina Tatarenko
Head of the Centre of Expertise
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Assisting central and local
governments
CENTRE OF EXPERTISE
Assisting central authorities
Legal assistance programmes (decentralization,
governance)
Preparation of reforms
Advice on legislation
Assisting local governments
Capacity building
programmes
Recommendation (2007) 12 on capacity building at local and
regional level
18
Innovative tools
Leadership Public EthicsIMC, C2C,
CBC
Human Resource
managementLocal Finance
Peer
Reviews
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Central Government
Local government
CitizensStrategy for Good Governance, 12 principles, capacity-building tools
Member State
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
The 12 Principles of Good Democratic Governance
• Represent the fundamental values of European democracyand requirements for good democratic governance at thelocal level.
• By reference to the 12 principles, local authorities from allCoE member States can improve their governance on acontinual basis.
• Public services provided by local authorities are financed bylocal residents through local taxes. The citizens expect theirlocal authority in return to respond to their expectations, tobe effective, accountable, transparent and responsive.
The Twelve Principles
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
1. Participation, Representation Fair Conduct of Elections
2. Responsiveness
3. Efficiency and Effectiveness
4. Openness and Transparency
5. Rule of Law
6. Ethical Conduct
7. Competence and Capacity
8. Innovation and Openness to Change
9. Sustainability and Long-term Orientation
10. Sound Financial Management
11. Human rights, Cultural Diversity and Social Cohesion
12. Accountability
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0qAoApT1M
Website: http://www.coe.int/en/web/good-governance/12-principles-and-eloge
THE 12 PRINCIPLES
OF GOOD DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Ethical Conduct ✓The public good is placed before
individual interests.
✓There are effective measures to preventand combat all forms of corruption.
✓Conflicts of interest are declared in atimely manner and persons involvedmust abstain from taking part inrelevant decisions.
Principle 6
Indicators:1. Public policies are decided taking in account the
general welfare role of the municipality.2. The local public interest guides the allocation of budgetary sources of the municipality.3. Codes of conduct specify the ethical standards expected of elected representatives and officials…4. Specific procedures have been adopted for decisions in areas at are vulnerable to corruption including procurement, selling municipal assets and awarding permits and licenses.5. An annual review of anti-corruption arrangements is undertaken, for example by internal or external audit.6. Personnel policies require staff to be appointed, promoted and awarded on merit, and/or disciplined only in accordance with approved procedures.7. Elected representatives and staff are required to declare any potential conflict of interest that could impact on decision taking and to stain from taking part in relevant decisions making. 8. Municipalities ensure an effective and efficient procurement and uses pre-set selection criteria. 9. Municipalities ensure free access to public procurement documents and decisions with regard to the awarding of the contract.
CoE Tools and Standards:
➢Public Ethics Benchmark
➢ Local Finance Benchmark
➢Guide, Guidelines
➢Recommendations
Citizens: In this municipality, all persons enjoy equal treatment irrespective of their connections with elected representatives or officials.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
OPEN GOVERNMENT – UCLG-UN
UCLG has recently created a Community of Practices on transparency and open local government. The group is formed by cities, but open to associate other institutions as well. On the UN side, UN-Habitat is an associated partner and UNODC is also interested in becoming part of it.
The main objective of the Community is to promote the work of Mayors and local governments worldwide in issues related to transparency and open government.
Building trust in local and regional publicadministration is fundamental toadvance towards any development goalset in the 2030 Agenda.
Main Principles of OpenGovernment:
- Transparency,
- Citizen participation,
- Accountability.
It is fundamental to strengthen thecapacities of local and regionalgovernments, including the developmentof participatory, innovative andsustainable tools, practices and policiesthat help to build effective, accountableand transparent institutions and ensureresponsive, inclusive, participatory andrepresentative decision-making at alllevels as part of the strategy forsustainable development.
7
Open Government
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
8
Implementation
Implementation of ELoGE:
Bulgaria
Norway
Malta
Greece
Spain – Basque Country
Poland
Italy
Ukraine
International projects – UDITE, ALDA,
Euroregions
Pilots – France
E-Tool on Good Governance :
https://etool.coe.int/login
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE Standards and Tools
• The Valencia Declaration and the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at local level, including the 12 Principles of Good Democratic Governance;
• Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on Judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities;
• Recommendation CM/Rec(2000)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on codes of conduct for public officials;
• Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2105 (2017) on Promoting integrity in governance to tackle political corruption;
• The European Code of Conduct (CG 35 (2018) 12) of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities for all Persons involved in Local and Regional Governance;
• PEB Tool
• The Draft Guidelines on Public Ethics – CDDG-2019
• The Management guide: Ethical frameworks for public organisations and public services – to be adopted by the CM in 2019;
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE Concequences of Corruption
• Financial impacts, including costs of fines and penalties imposed (in some cases they may be imposed both on individual staff members and on the organisation as a whole),
• Legal consequences, including the likelihood of litigation against the organisation and/or individual staff members responsible for taking the disputed decision,
• Loss of prestige and trust in the organisation as a result of complaints,
• Loss of trust among key partners of the organisation.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE PEB Tool -1
The key elements of a formal anti-corruption system include:
• Requirements concerning ethical leadership related to internal communication, promotion of ethical attitudes, building the image of an ethical organisation;
• Expanding the scope of internal audits by adding issues related to the operation of an anti-corruption system;
• Implemented rules and mode of conduct in cases when corruptive actions occur;
• Educational activities targeted at the personnel with respect to ethics and corruption prevention.
• Anti-Corruption Policy – a separate document which is part of formal documentation regulating the operations of the institution;
• Corruption Risk Analysis covering identification of risks and the level of likelihood of their occurrence, and the related consequences for all processes identified in the institution;
• Systematic Audit Procedures applicable to anti-corruption safeguards, and monitoring of processes prone to the risk of corruption;
• Management procedures separated in the organisational structure, coupled with system supervision.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Solutions
• Guidelines for actions to be taken in cases of corruptive situations or suspected unethical or illegal conduct,
• Procedures to verify assets’ declarations,
• Bylaws to prevent conflicts of interest,
• Solutions which specify general legal solutions regarding public procurement,
• Regulations concerning additional employment,
• Rules of contact with lobbyists,
• Personnel recruitment and promotion procedures.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE Corruption Risk Analysis
Risk analysis tools were developed several decades ago for theneeds of business and financial institutions of estimating the risks ofunexpected and undesirable events (e.g. fires, accidents, etc.).Despite some criticism, these tools are becoming increasingly morepopular in public administration (e.g. to estimate the risk ofcorruption).
The goal of such tools is not to detect the existing corruptionphenomena but rather to assess the risk that these might materialise.Risk analysis tools can provide effective prevention and protectionfrom potential negative circumstances.
Based on the results of risk analysis, the processes within the institutionare divided into safe ones and those involving a higher risk ofcorruption events. Safe processes are those where, given their natureand goals, the risk of corruption events is low (the value of theassociated risk is below an agreed threshold). High-risk processes(labelled in various ways, depending on the institution) are thosewhich involve a higher risk of corruption.
13
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
• Cash transactions,
• Decisions on expenditures made by individuals or groups of employees,
• Awarding contracts to suppliers/external contractors,
• Giving individuals or groups of individuals the opportunity to use limited services or resources,
• Ensuring freedom to staff members in making decisions to award subsidies or benefits,
• Making decisions concerning the selection of the place where a service is to be performed,
• Making decisions concerning employment and/or staff’s promotion,
• Making decisions that may affect individual careers in the long run.
• The following factors may accompany the likelihood of risk:
• Existence or absence of competition, e.g. there is a need to purchase a service, place an order, employ a specialist, obtain specific performances,
• Amount (size of funds) being expended,
• Existence of disputable issues,
• Existence of complaints in the past. Development and implementation of procedures which reduce the likelihood of risk would not eliminate risk completely, which is why it is important to have constant internal control mechanisms.
Risk analysis
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
A sample service card for an
administrative service:
SERVICE CARD
• Name and scope of service offered:
• Card approval date:
• Responsible person:
• Documents required to settle the matter
• How to file the application / Where to submit documents
• How and when the matter will be arranged
• Responsible individuals at the office / Contact persons
• Fees
• Legal basis
• Appeal procedure
• Additional remarks
• Information on appendices / forms
15
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
EXAMPLE: Factors that reduce or increase the
likelihood of a corruption event
Factors that reduce the likelihood of a risk – the existing safeguards
• Clearly defined powers within the scope of employees’ responsibilities and authorisations
• Transparent and objective compensation for employees, defined in the Compensation Rules
• A clear division of powers regarding the development, verification and validation of financial documents and operations
• Activities performed by one employee are verified by a colleague or a supervisor
• There are clear, stable and transparent rules of conduct set out in internal regulations (e.g. Internal Audit Rules)
• Meetings between the employees and outsiders take place in the presence of several people
• Tender committees are composed of representatives of several organisational units, in accordance with the rules set out in the internal regulations (e.g. Internal Audit Rules)
• Members of the tender committee sign a declaration of impartiality
• Records are kept to enable traceability and accountability of completed activities
• More than one organisational unit participate in various processes
Factors that increase the likelihood of a threat:
a) Vulnerability
• A large number of operations and their types
• Meetings between employees and outsiders are held without witnesses, outside the institution’s premises
• No rules governing the area concerned
• Employees are exposed to external pressures
• No clear criteria for dealing with issues/discretion in dealing with cases
b) Historical data
• Occurrence of the same threat in the institution in the past
• Occurrence of the same threat in other organisations16
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPESample risk assessment card
Corruption risk assessment for a process (service):
......................................................................................................................
Description of corruption risks:
......................................................................................................................
Outcome of corruption risk assessment:
Likelihood of materialisation of a corruption risk (according to the adopted scale):
........................................................
Effects of materialisation of a corruption risk (according to the adopted scale):
........................................................
Total score for assessed corruption risk (likelihood x assessment of effects) ........................................................
Factors that reduce risk:
......................................................................................................................
Factor that increase risk:
......................................................................................................................
Proposed preventive measures:
......................................................................................................................
Way of monitoring corruption risk:
......................................................................................................................
17
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Risk Reduction or Elimination
• Developing and implementing detailed procedures to be applied by staff members,
• Defining the decision-making criteria before a tender is announced for the award of a contract for services, or works, or a competition for a position,
• Building acceptance of decision-making criteria among staff members who make decisions of a specific kind (in this context, it is important to avoid reinforcing bad practices),
• Separation of assessment and decision-making, for instance in a way that people who are responsible for assessing tender bids do not decide on awarding a specific contract,
• Defining rules and procedures for staff to report cases in which corruption risks have materialised.
• Training people who are responsible for decision-making concerning policies and procedures for adhering to ethical standards,
• Developing and implementing a system to control decision-making (one good solution might be to hand over the control to a third party),
• Gathering opinions from stakeholders (e.g. contractors, candidates for a position who were ultimately not hired, or bidders whose bid was not accepted) on whether the procedures were applied fairly,
• Developing and implementing an open procedure to file and examine complaints in order to ensure that the competent staff members from the organisation are independent in their decision-making.
• Introducing procedures (rules) of whistleblowing in the organisation.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Risk Evaluation: example
Circumstances Risk likelihood Impact on the
organisation
Necessary
steps
Recruitment/promotion
Decisions on contract awards
Cash transactions
Access to services
No procedures to file and examine
complaints and/or to exchange
information with stakeholders
Pressure from someone within or
outside the organisation, aiming to
ignore the existing procedure
Other types of risks (specify)
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE Gender and Corruption
GRECO Research:
• More women - (politics, business, administration) – more democracy – less corruption
• Big corruption scandals (FIFA, Volkswagen, Rolls Roys) – more corruption risks in the men-dominated organisations.
• Man/women types of corruption – gratuity, bribe, economic extortion, conflict of interests
• IAI Austria – less than 20% of women in corruption cases
• Women participation as corruption prevention
• More corrupt societies – less elected women and vice versa
(2015 Roundtable)
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
The European Score Card for Public Ethics at Local Level:
What gets measured, gets done!
Chapter A: Status of local elected representatives
Chapter B: Funding of political parties, political associations and individual candidates local level
Chapter C: Control and audit of local authorities
Chapter D: Status of local public servants
Chapter E: Transparency, administrative procedures, anti-corruption campaigns and evaluation
Chapter F: Local authorities’ relations with the private sector
General results
https://rm.coe.int/peb-public-ethics-benchmarking/1680746d52
PEB Tool -2
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE DRAFT GUIDELINES ON PE
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE
(CDDG) - WORKING GROUP ON PUBLIC ETHICS(GT-EP)
DRAFT GUIDELINES ON PUBLIC ETHICS
Recommends:
- Draw up a public ethics strategy at national, regional, and local
level
- Encourage and ensure compliance with the principles of public
ethics…
Appendices: definitions, principles, steps and measures…
22
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE Draft Guide on PE
INTRODUCTION, The Approach, The Context
1.3 The Role of the GUIDE
1.4 The Council’s Public Ethics Portfolio
2.2 Implementing the GUIDE: From Principles to Framework to Culture
STEP 1: PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC ETHICS
The Democratic Context
3.2 Guiding Principles
3.2.1 Principles relevant to democratic governance
Principles relevant to work performance
Principles relevant to personal and interpersonal relations
4. STEP 2: SOCIETY AND LEADERSHIP
4.1 Overview
4.2 An informed and engaged society
4.3 Leadership and Ownership
4.3.1 Personal Commitment
4.3.2 Overall strategic approach
Standards and strategies
Codes, Ownership
5. STEP 3: DEVELOPMENT, Overview
5.2 Understanding the how, what and why of the public ethics
organisational framework
5.2.1 Why? Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reasons in the Right Way
5.2.2 How? Taking Forward Steps 1 & 2 into the Organisational Context
5.2.3. What? Developing the Concrete Components for the Framework
General Issues, Specific Issues
Guidance on Legal and Regulatory Frameworks
Codes, Personal Rights, Roles and Responsibilities
Conflict-of-interest
Contracts, procurement and outsourcing
Lobbying, political activity and revolving door
Separation of Political and Administrative Duties
Good administrative practice
Promotion of Public Ethics
5.2.4 Where? The Role of Human Resources Management
6. STEP 4: ENABLEMENT
6.2 Reinforcement: Transparency and Accountability
6.3 Reform processes
6.4 Incentives, Rewards and Recognition for Promoting Ethical
Behaviour
6.5 Monitoring, Complaints (Internal and External), Formal
Reporting
6.8 Control: Compliance with the Ethical Framework
Internal control, External control
7. Appropriate Sanctions
23
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
Head of the Centre of Expertisefor Good Governance
DG Democracy
Council of Europe,
67075 Strasbourg, France
Alina TATARENKO
THANK YOU
www.coe.int/en/web/good-governance/centre-of-expertise