The public administration is expected to undergo a reorganization that will be based on new rules of operation and accountability, based on a new legal initiative proposed by the Minister of State for Public Administration and Anti-Corruption, Adea Pirdeni.
The proposals for new legal provisions in the law "On the organization and functioning of the state administration", published on the public consultation platform, bring a series of structural changes that affect the architecture of the administration and include detailed rules on its organization and functioning.
The draft envisages a redesign of the institutional system, the establishment of a unified system of supervision and accountability, the shifting of the level of decision-making responsibility to the directorates along with the delegation of competencies, and the strengthening of the role of the Department of Public Administration as a supervisory authority.
The goals expressed in the initiative's report focus on improving the organization, functioning and accountability of public administration, defining internal performance reporting rules, and clarifying the typology of subordinate institutions.
But the wording of some of the provisions is met with criticism from civil society experts.
“The draft law, although aiming for clarity and standardization, carries some serious problems,” Rovena Sulstarova from the Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM) told BIRN.
According to Sulstarova, the initiative creates a completely uniform system of oversight and accountability, a system that, according to her, "although aiming for standardization and transparency, risks limiting the space for internal autonomy of institutions."
She also emphasizes that the amendments made are so substantial that they raise a debate about whether it would be more appropriate to make a new law.
Meanwhile, Andrea Mazelliu, a legal expert at the Albanian Helsinki Committee, appreciates the proposals made in the service of increasing the efficiency of the functioning and organization of the state administration. However, he also sees as a main problem the inclusion of public higher education institutions, diplomatic missions abroad, and the Armed Forces as part of the state administration.
"All three of these structures are organized in such a way that they partially depend on the responsible ministries, the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic, etc., and their inclusion in the hierarchy of the state administration would significantly limit and violate the constitutional protection of these bodies," said Mazelliu.
The draft law categorizes institutions outside ministries into two typologies: (i) subordinate institutions and (ii) regulatory authorities with full autonomy, a reorganization that, according to Sulstarova, will have consequences and a direct violation of their autonomy.
"On the one hand, it could create more legal clarity and avoid the numerous overlaps that exist today in the administration, where agencies often operate without a clear status and with non-uniform relationships with ministries. On the other hand, this approach risks artificially shortening the spaces of autonomy for a large part of institutions, turning them into 'dependent institutions' with little managerial flexibility," she suggests.
In practice, according to her, this could lead to mergers or consolidations of existing agencies, not always based on a functional analysis, but simply to adapt to the new legal typology.
"The effect can be negative if uniformity and centralization prevail over the need for specialization and sectoral flexibility," the IDM expert emphasizes.
Even for Mazelliu, the provisions regarding the creation, merger, change and abolition of institutions and agencies require legal clarity.
"It would be clearer if it also defined how these changes would be made, with what type of act, given that this article provides for two types of institutions: those of dependency, which are created by sub-legal acts, and autonomous agencies, which are created and abolished by law," he adds.
However, he believes that the proposed changes to autonomous agencies clarify their functioning and establishment, enabling increased efficiency in their organization and functioning, but finds the formulations related to their supervision and delegation of powers to these bodies problematic.
"Another issue was the supervision of autonomous agencies, and the new proposal assigns this competence to the secretary general and not to a supervisory body, composed of several members from several ministries. It is worth noting that autonomous agencies are established with the aim of exercising specialized and strategic functions, which other ministries or institutions cannot perform alone in the most efficient way," Mazelliu points out.
He also calls the legal provision that “the responsible unit is also the ‘superior body’ in the administrative appeal procedure and in the procedure for annulment or repeal of acts of the subordinate institution under the Code of Administrative Procedure” a “violation of legal certainty.”
According to him, in this case the law should have provided for another body, such as a court or another independent collegial body provided for in the law.
Meanwhile, experts share different opinions on the provisions that provide for the organization of institutions subordinate to the Prime Minister.
Sipas Rovena Sulstarovës, vendosja e një pjese të institucioneve në varësi të drejtpërdrejtë të kryeministrit sjell një forcim të rolit të tij si ‘qendër e vetme e kontrollit politik mbi administratën’.
“Kjo sjell një risk real për politizim të mëtejshëm, sepse ul distancën institucionale mes qeverisjes politike dhe administratës shtetërore, e cila në parim duhet të funksionojë mbi baza meritokratike dhe profesionale,” thekson ajo.
Veçanërisht problematike ajo konsideron nenin që lejon që një institucion të kalojë nën varësinë e Kryeministrit, edhe për funksione që nuk janë parashikuar në Kushtetutë, me arsyetimin se ato përbëjnë “prioritet qeverisës”.
“Ky është një term politik dhe jo juridik, prandaj hap mundësi të gjera për politizim dhe për tejkalim të kufijve ligjorë,” theksoi Sulstarova.
“Kjo i jep hapësirë ekzekutivit për të krijuar apo mbajtur struktura që nuk janë të domosdoshme, duke e zbehur kufirin ligjor mes institucioneve horizontale të nevojshme dhe atyre të ngritura për qëllime të tjera, si patronazh apo kontroll politik,” shtoi ajo.
Në një krahasim me praktikën e vendeve të BE-së, Sulstarova thotë se atje ndodh e kundërta, ku për të shmangur ndërhyrjen e tepruar politike, institucionet e specializuara vendosen nën përgjegjësi të ministrive sektoriale ose edhe raportojnë direkt para Parlamentit, në mënyrë që balanca mes autonomisë dhe llogaridhënies të ruhet.
Ndryshe nga ajo, Mazelliu thotë se mënyra e parashikuar e organizimit dhe funksionimit të institucioneve në varësi të kryeministrit, parimisht nuk sjellin rritje të politizimit të administratës për aq kohë sa ushtrimi i kësaj kompetence është në përputhje me kushtet dhe kriteret e parashikuara në ligjin për administratën shtetërore dhe nuk kapërcehen kufinjtë e këtij ligji.
“Ligji ka parashikuar që institucionet në varësi të Kryeministrit, të cilat mund të përbënin një rrezik të politizimit, apo duke shtuar numrin e institucioneve të varësisë nga Kryeministri, do të ishin institucionet e varësisë të cilat, sipas propozimit në nenin e propozuar 6 pika 1/4, do të kishin funksion prioritar të qeverisë dhe do të ishin vetëm përkohësisht në varësi të Kryeministrit,” thotë ai.
Gjithsesi, Mazelliu sugjeron se “në këtë rast, vlen për t’u diskutuar se parimi i subsidiaritetit do të ishte kyç në këtë vendimmarrje”.
Transferimi i vendimmarrjes në nivel menaxherial, përkufizimi i stafit të ministrit me karakter politik, delegimi i kompetencave dhe mënyra e organizimit dhe llogaridhënies së institucioneve të varësisë, janë disa nga ndryshimet që shihen si delikate nga ekspertët për pasojat që mund të kenë në funksionimin e administratës.
Sipas Sulstarovës, zhvendosja e vendimmarrjes në nivel drejtorie synon të ulë ngërçet hierarkike, por “në mungesë të mekanizmave të fortë të koordinimit horizontal dhe mbikëqyrjes së qartë, ajo rrezikon të prodhojë fragmentim, mbivendosje përgjegjësish dhe konflikt kompetencash midis drejtorive”.
Likewise, the reduction of the typology of non-ministerial bodies into two categories, subordinate institutions and regulatory authorities with full functional autonomy, is considered by her as "an excessively narrow approach that does not reflect the real diversity of the Albanian administration, where there are structures with mixed mandates, specific technical competencies or coordination roles that do not clearly fit into either of these two categories."
Also of concern to Sulstarova is the designation of ministerial cabinets as positions of political trust, which can be terminated at any time by the respective minister.
“In the absence of clear limitations on the size, role and functions of cabinets, there is a risk that they will turn into parallel structures of the administration, weakening the neutrality and professionalism of the civil service,” she says.
Andrea Mazelliu from the Albanian Helsinki Committee identifies the provisions on the delegation of legal powers as problematic.
"The proposals made would weaken the institution of delegation by not limiting delegation to defined functions or to issues related to the provision of services to local government units," he says, adding that even the repeal of the delegation provision to local self-government institutions could create a legal vacuum regarding the fulfillment of the principle of deconcentration.
According to him, no justification for the delegation of a function has been provided, which would lead to problems in maintaining functional responsibility by managers or public bodies vested with that competence./Reporter.al
