Workshop on The Study of the Alignment of DO and PAWG

An Appraisal on the

“Realignment of the DO and PAWG System”

04 April 2012

By Peter Graham & Im Sophea

Background to the Study“ The objectives of the DFGG are to strengthen demand for good governance in selected municipalities/districts in all

provinces in the country”“Under the World Bank funded DFGG project, one of the

initiatives….. is the expansion of OWSO and DO to selected municipalities/districts”

“The WB has also been supporting the N/PAWGs whose purpose is to “ensure the transparent, accountable and effective use of the Commune Sangkat Fund and other

funds under management of NCDDS”.“To address arising issues the mid term review of DFGG

calls for an alignment of the DO and PAWG, within a further alignment of IP3”

“The objective of study (by the consultants) is to identify ways in which the DO could be better aligned with the

PAWG within the context of the IP3.”

Why Re-align?

- Need expressed in Aide Memoire issued after 2011 Mid Term Revue of DFGG Project

- Improve complaint handling at sub-provincial level

- Different levels of operation by PAWG and DO

- PAWG developed before development of District administration or Council

- Overlapping responsibilities (identified in Mid Term Review)

- Duplication of tasks (identified in Mid Term Review)

- Confusion over roles in mind of the public

- Cost effectiveness

What do we mean by “Re –alignment or Alignment”?

It is the bringing of each organization into line with each other to make the responsibility more compatible and

efficient.

It does not necessarily mean “Integrating the PAWG and DO in to one organization” although that option has

been considered.

AIM

To list the options available to realign the DO and PAWG

system, and to examine the advantages and disadvantages

of each with a view to recommending an acceptable

action plan.

FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

These factors incorporate views expressed within the provinces and districts visited and reports and analyses previously published

One Window Service Office (OWSO) * Public trust and satisfaction in the service offered by the OWSOs is growing.* The need for resolution of complaints arising from failing of staff and procedures in the OWSOs is minimal.* Delegation of some line ministries /departments to OWSOs is established. Others are under consideration. * MTR assesses performance as Moderately Satisfactory.* At least in Battambang and Siem Reap revenues exceed costs.

District Ombudsmen (DO) * Established with each OWSO but independent.* No Ombudsman supervisory chain.* Mandate not restricted only to oversight of OWSO* Trained and developing complaint resolution skills* Not overburdened by need to resolve complaints* Referral power to District Governor, line depts… etc* Trusted by public.* Fast resolution* Overseen by District Council* Outreach/public education mandated and active* Viewed as a “reasonable” accountability mechanism

Provincial Accountability Working Group (PAWG) * PAWG established in each province.* Accountability Boxes are set up throughout the country in best locations to receive complaints.* Location of boxes known to the public.* Procedures for complaint resolution are established.* Investigations are conducted.* Resolution/investigation process slow.* PAWGs Mandate not yet fully understood by the public.* Chaired and supported by Provincial Governor.* Accountability referrals to line departments.* Viewed as a “punishing” accountability mechanism.

Administrative ministries and departments * Representation of many already delegated to Districts/Municipalities* Plans to delegate more.* Retain individual complaint mechanism.* Overseen by District Governor.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

* Playing supportive role to PAWG but more involved with DO.

*Make contributions to outreach.

*Assist in complaint resolution.

Complaints and complainants * Confidentiality of complaint is important.

* Anonymity of complainants no problem for investigation by either DO or PAWG

* Similarity/duplication of complaints

Sub-district organizations * Commune/Sangkat Councils and Chiefs and Village Chiefs informally receive and resolve complaints.

* Relationship to DO/OWSO and PAWG is limited

Finance * POC is essential for sustainability of both PAWG and DO.

* Lack of funds still a major problem affecting PAWG performance.

National Anti-Corruption Program * No collaboration between any Local Government agency and the ACU.* Possible use by ACU of both PAWG and OWSO facilities for local office outreach/ education/prevention* PAWG does not refer cases to ACU.

Mandates * Original AWG mandate limited to commune/sangkat fund but now involves others.

* DO mandate concerning OWSO’s services and staff now expanded to include others

Lines of accountability * DO is accountable to District Council (promoting Democratic Development ) and PAWG to Provincial Governor.

* Also different selection procedures.

Information provision DO will play a more important role when Citizen Information Centers are established (this year, preparations ongoing)

OPTIONS OPEN FOR ALIGNMENT

ACUPAWG DO

OPTION 1:

Advantages

An easy answer at first glance Disadvantages

- Weakens the Ombudsman identity and complaint resolution by mediation- Removes DO accountability capability from District level to Province

- Weakens work done to establish proper sub-national accountability/corruption investigation capability now in hands of PAWG

- Gives DO a law enforcement role which does not fit his public image- Confusing alliance of a service concept (the OWSO/DO) with criminal investigation and

penalties for misconduct (PAWG)- Does not fit with decontrol and decentralization policies

- Requires a large staff

Integrate DO and PAWG into one organization which takes

care of the complaints regarding the OWSO and the Commune/

Sangkat Fund (as well as the District Fund, staring 2013).

PAWGDO

OPTION 2

Advantages- Makes maximum use of “softer” resolution process at all levels.

- Expansion of OWSO services has public support.- Faster resolution

- Builds trust of complainants- Maintains independence of oversight by elected ombudsmen

- Creates impressive international image - Makes use of existing facilities and public awareness

Disadvantages.- Lacks “Official” accountability status

- Reduces power of PAWG to the original mandate of Commune/Sangkat fund

Expand and enhance the number of services (offered by the OWSO) that

the DO supervises, reducing the responsibilities of the PAWG to its

original mandate (and clarifying it ).

PAWGDO

OPTION 3

Advantages- Makes maximum use of existing facilities.

- Reduces time spent on investigation by PAWG- Enhances official (law enforcement/anti-corruption) status of PAWG

- Expands authority of DO and produces greater impartiality in resolution of complaints about line departments

- Reduces cost of PAWG Disadvantages

- Requires additional funding for DO and staff- May require readjustment of OWSO responsibilities

Adjust Mandates of PAWG and DO to recognize differences, leaving establishments as at present. The PAWG would become an anti-corruption authority at Provincial level

and below, to receive and investigate complaints of corruption and financial

malpractice. The mandate of the DO would include misconduct of staff and inadequate procedures in all district line departments.

PAWG DO

OPTION 4

AdvantagesImproved speed of resolution of complaints

Simple, single one box process for public to understandEnhanced policy and discipline capability

Referral of complaints outside of Group meeting less common Disadvantages

Too many DOs on PAWG in some Provinces and in Phnom PenhIncreased workload for DOs

Possible decline in trust and confidence of public. If there is not enough improved outreach to explain

Include DO as member of PAWG. This would ensure a central/joint screening

of collected complaints to ensure appropriate distribution for resolution. It would assist to ensure alignment of

tasks and official awareness of activities and avoid duplication of effort.

PAWG DO

RECOMMENDED WAY AHEAD

1. Adjust Mandates of DO and PAWG as in Option 3

RECOMMENDED WAY AHEAD

2. Expand services of OWSO as in Option 2

RECOMMENDED WAY AHEAD

3. Expand membership of PAWGs to include DOs as in Option 4

RECOMMENDED WAY AHEAD

4. Review PAWG accountability (to Provincial Council)

RECOMMENDED WAY AHEAD

5. Mount extensive outreach/ public education program to announce realignment

RECOMMENDED WAY AHEAD

6. Consider extension of Ombudsman to national level

RECOMMENDED WAY AHEAD

7. Review national complaint resolution policy and mechanisms

Thank you so much for your participation and attention

Any question/ Comment/ Recommendation ?