Commissioner for Information of Public Importance

MEDIA

Standing on Their Feet
Source: Borba

The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance celebrated yesterday three years of work, during which this Office solved almost four hundred cases, mostly complaints.

The Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance was adopted on 2 November 2004, and on 22 December that year Rodoljub Šabić was elected the Commissioner, but the conditions for his normal work were not ensured until 1 July 2005. Since then, 4668 cases, mostly complaints, have been registered and 3928 have been solved. About 90% of those who were previously denied information of public importance received them after addressing the Commissioner for Information, reads the announcement. About 7% complaints were refused or rejected. In several percents of all cases, the statement reads on, when information was not received even after the Commissioner's order, the reason was failure of the Serbian Government to activate mechanisms for enforcing the Commissioner's orders, which is its legal duty. The Commissioner organized a large number of seminars, mostly in cooperation with the civil sector, for education of employees in government bodies, citizens and journalists, and several editions of the guide through the Law were published, including editions on all languages of ethnic minorities. The Catalogue of public authorities with about 11,000 public authorities was also published. On the occasion of the three-year anniversary, Mr. Šabić said statistics showed that he and his associates managed to make a new public authority functional. A good thing was that results had been achieved in inadequate premises, with several times lower number of associates and with considerably lower spending of the budget resources compared to those envisaged. What was bad, however, was that work in inadequate conditions had negative effects on the Commissioner's diligence, said Mr. Šabić. He said that it was “hard to understand” why this very burdensome, and yet for the state so trivial problem of space had not been resolved for three years. All the more so because the National Program on EU Integration and the Personal Data Protection Bill envisaged considerable extension of powers and further increase of duties of the Commissioner for Information. The attainment of European legal standards is not a matter of nice wishes and stories, but of real life and practice, and this is why it requires necessary administrative capacities and an adequate normative environment, said Mr. Šabić in an interview with the Beta agency. Administrative capacities imply the duty of the Serbian Government to finally, without further delay, provide adequate premises and working conditions for the Commissioner's Office and to activate mechanisms for enforcement of Commissioner's decisions and for liability of those who violate the Law.

The normative environment implies the duty of urgent adoption and actual implementation of several complementary laws, which will largely influence the quality of achievement of freedom of access to information.

02-07-2008

...................................................................................................................................

Public Administration remains Silent to Questions raised by the Public
Source: Danas

AGAINST SLUGGISHNESS

Since 22 December 2004, the day when Rodoljub Šabić was elected Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, the citizens of Serbia have had an address they can turn to they are not satisfied with the reply of a government institution or if the administration remains silent and does not provide requested information within the time limit set by the law. Mr. Šabić spoke for “Danas” about his experiences with government institutions, problems, citizens' complaints, silence of administration…

- What are your experiences with provision of information by government institutions, that is, what do citizens and journalist most often complain about?

- The last three years have been marked by a constant increase of the number of requests for access to information from citizens submitted to all levels of public administration. It is also typical that, although requests for information have concerned virtually all walks of life, focus has undoubtedly been on issues in connection with the disposal of public money and other public resources - public procurements, privatizations, concessions, budget expenditures etc. And, of course, the largest number of complaints submitted to the Commissioner for Information is about these things. In my opinion, this is a sign that the citizens have recognized the potential of the freedom of information in the fight against sluggishness, prodigality, abuse and corruption.

- What are the most frequent problems and which institutions most often refuse to cooperate or do not reply to questions?

- There are problems at all levels, from primary schools and local communities, through local self-government and public enterprises to central government bodies. Of almost 4,000 complaints submitted to the Commissioner for Information, more than 90 percent were submitted because of so-called “silence of administration”, i.e. because requests were ignored, which is a really unbelievable percentage and is indicative of an utterly unfair treatment given to the rights of the public enshrined in the law. A government body can decide to deny requested information under the conditions set by law, but in no case can it ignore a request. What is particularly absurd is the fact that most of them, at least 65 percent, give information which they previously denied right after the first intervention of the Commissioner, even without the formal order. Other bodies do so after the Commissioner's order. A small number, several percent, do not give information even after that. The problem is not large in terms of numbers, but it is a major matter of principle, particularly when it comes to public authorities, which should have special responsibility in exercising the principle of legality. This is why I recently named some of them publicly, for example the Ministry of Infrastructure, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Agency for Privatization, but there are more of them on this list.

I believe that one of the priority tasks of the new Government will have to be to introduce more stringent responsibility in connection with this, and, of course, to finally activate a mechanism for enforcing the Commissioner's decisions.

- How can institutions be made to open for provision of information of public importance?

- It is a complex task which can only be achieved gradually; it will take time, but it must be constantly worked on. One of the most important things is education of people in government bodies. This task cannot be expected to be handled by the Commissioner and the civil sector alone, it must be handled by the public administration system. Education should provide unconditional understanding and acceptance of at least three things.

The first thing is that in a democratic society it is quite normal for the government to be accountable to the public. This it is not something that depends on somebody's good will, but the duty set by the Constitution and law of Serbia.

Secondly, this is not only the duty for the people in government bodies, but also a chance, an opportunity for affirmation of their results. A good worker with good results has nothing to hide from the public, on the contrary.

The third thing is that freedom of access to information does not imply only the duty of the Government to give information when citizens or media request it. The Government should provide to the public objective, documented information to the maximum possible extent, even when no one specifically requests it. In the age we live in, an excellent way to provide this information to the public is by publishing it on the Internet. Unfortunately, I think there is little reason to be satisfied here. Much more should and could have been done, but we will talk about this on some other occasion.

- Which answers and excuses do institutions use when they do not want to give information?

- Information is most often denied by silence, ignoring of a request. When public authorities do not remain silent, various explanations are purported, some of them even (tragi)comical.

Still, in most cases this is done by invoking “confidentiality” - official, state or commercial secrets. And we are, unfortunately, maybe the last country in Europe which does not have a modern law on confidential data classification, and information is marked as confidential by obsolete arbitrary criteria from the old times, from the regulations passed in Milošević's time, or even in Tito's time. This is why it is no accident that “secrets” often conceal not only information which by no means deserves this status, but also information withheld on the basis of absolutely illegitimate interests.

- How can we make an institution to give requested information, if, for example, BIA refuses to reveal the amount of its director's salary claiming it to be a State secret?

- Easy, but under the condition that there is a will to do that. Decisions of the Commissioner for Information are binding by the Law. A government body which does not act according to them violates the Law on purpose, which is certainly not expected of a government body. Still, the legislators envisaged a solution for this situation as well, stating that “in case it is necessary the Serbian Government shall provide implementation of the Commissioner's decision”. It is hard to understand why, but the Serbian Government has not performed this duty so far. Why it has not done so is a question which should be addressed to persons who constituted the Government. In any case, it is high time it started doing it. As the highest executive authority, the Government has a special role and responsibility exactly in terms of implementation of laws, this one and any other, of course.Aleksandar Roknic

28-06-2008

...................................................................................................................................

A Normal Thing
Source: Blic

Comments

Rodoljub Šabić, Commissioner for Information

The media have recently given much coverage to the criticism of the “Energy Observer”, a web site specialized for energy issues, addressed to the Energy Agency and the Energy Efficiency Agency. Claiming that the Agencies did not justify their existence, that no new generation plants had been built for decades, that there was a threat of crisis and restrictions, the “Energy Observer” called on the management of the two Agencies to resign. The attention of the media was attracted by the criticisms (which are yet to be verified by experts in the field) and the calls for resigns, but the least attention was given to what deserved to be criticized most - the calls for the Agencies to inform the public how much money they have spent since their foundation, i.e. what is their annual cost.

This call deserves attention because it warns about something much more important than the “energy case”. It warns against the fact that accountability to the public is nothing to marvel at, but a normal thing. Even under our country's Law on Free Access to Information, information on disposal of public resources should, even without a request, be made public and published on the Internet. And yet, many seem to “fail to understand” this. This needs to be changed.

In every regulated society, the duty of those who spend public money to present their accounts to those who provide this money is undisputed. It has to become undisputed in our country as well. And data on the budget deficit and the depletion of available resources which could be sold to “recover” the damage seem to indicate it is the high time for that.

25-06-2008

...................................................................................................................................

Support to the Commissioner for Information
Source: Politika

Consistent implementation of the Law on Access to Information of Public Importance is very important basis for strengthening of democratic institutions in Serbia and the country's efforts to take part in European integration, it was said yesterday at the meeting of Serbian Minister of Culture Vojislav Brajović and his associates with Commissioner for Information Rodoljub Šabić.

Since the Ministry of Culture, competent for implementation of this Law, does not have human and technical resources for controlling the implementation, Minister Brajović reminded that it had been suggested to the Committee for Culture and Informing of the Serbian Assembly several months ago to give that competence to some other ministry which has an adequate infrastructure and he expects that it will happen as soon as the new Government is formed.

17-06-2008

...................................................................................................................................

Before and now
Source: Blic

Those who are familiar with our public scene know that one should not have illusions about things such as cultural limits, minimum argument standards, correctness etc. In our country, such things are at the rudimentary level, they barely exist. In our reality, a bunch of lies, disqualifying statements and insults poured out at an public officer by the Director of the Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) in an interview to daily papers, and even “editorial policy” of RTS which in the interview of its boss recognizes the news of national importance and (re)broadcasts in its informative program lies and insults, are really not the phenomena which deserve particular attention.

When the attacked denied lies in an official, public announcement, it was repeated, as it should be, wholly or partially, by virtually all relevant media. But RTS did not repeat it, not a word of it. Even in our conditions, it is a phenomenon which deserves serious attention. When compared with this, it even becomes irrelevant who is actually right. The more important question is - what kind of a “public service” is that which serves to its director (or anybody else) to attack (anyone) and does not let the other side to be heard? And what does this kind of “informing” mean to the public? Does it not, such as it is, remind of a time when it was controlled by the famous gurus of “unbiased” informing of the former regime - Matić, Marković and the rest of that company? Should it not be beyond dispute that it has changed a lot since then?

11-06-2008

...................................................................................................................................

NEXT 5