SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (SANAP) QUARTERLY REPORT (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
APRIL 15, 2015 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Tetra Tech.
Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number AID-OAA-I-as-00001/AID-111-TO-12-00001.
Tetra Tech Contact: Erica Goldberg [email protected]
Tetra Tech Home Office Address: Tetra Tech 159 Bank Street, Suite 300, Burlington, VT 05401 Tel: 802 658-3890, Fax 802 658-4247 www.tetratechintdev.com
Cover photo: This and all photos are credited to the Support to the Armenian National Assembly Program staff.
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (SANAP) QUARTERLY REPORT (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
APRIL 15, 2015
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... II 1.0 OVERVIEW ...... 1 1.1 PROGRAM SCOPE AND PURPOSE ...... 1 1.2 PROGRAM BACKDROP ...... 2 2.0 KEY ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD ...... 3 2.1 SUMMARY ...... 3 2.2 PROGRAM BUDGETNG ...... 3 2.3 STUDY TOUR TO CONNECTICUT GENERAL SSSEMBLY ...... 5 2.4 IMPROVING PARLIAMENT HEARINGS AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT ...... 7 2.5 STAFF CAPACITY IMPROVED ...... 9 2.6 FELLOWS PROGRAM ...... 10 2.7 VISITORS CENTER AND LIVE STREAMING COMMITTEE HEARINGS ...... 11 2.8 PUBLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT ...... 11 3.0 PLANNED ACTIVITES FOR THE NEXT QUARTER ...... 12 3.1 OBJECTIVE ONE: REPRESENTATION OF CITIZEN INTERESTS INCREASED ...... 12 3.2 OBJECTIVE TWO: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT IMPROVED ...... 13 3.3 OBJECTIVE THREE: COMMITTEE ANALYTICAL CAPACITIES INCREASED ...... 14 3.4 OBJECTIVE FOUR: COMMITTEE RULES AND PROCEDURES MADE CLEARER AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY INCREASED ...... 14 ANNEX I: QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT ...... 16 ANNEX II: MEDIA CLIPS ...... 17 ANNEX III: FINAL STTA REPORT CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY STUDY TOUR ...... 21
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AUA American University of Armenia COC Chamber of Control COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CSO Civil Society Organization DCOP Deputy Chief of Party GIZ German International Technical Cooperation Agency IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract IR Intermediate Result M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOU Memorandum of Understanding MP Member of Parliament NA National Assembly NGO Nongovernmental Organization OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe PMP Performance Monitoring Plan SANAP Support to the Armenian National Assembly Program STA/M Senior Technical Advisor/Manager STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance USAID United States Agency for International Development
ii SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
1.0 OVERVIEW
1.1 PROGRAM SCOPE AND PURPOSE Tetra Tech was awarded the USAID-funded Support to the Armenian National Assembly Program (SANAP) on September 5, 2012. This $4,269,138 program works to strengthen the National Assembly’s institutional capacity by accomplishing the following objectives over the four-year implementation period (2012-2016):
1. Representation of citizens’ interests by selected committees increased. 2. Oversight of the executive branch by selected committees improved. 3. Analytical capacity of selected committees improved. 4. Rules and procedures governing selected committees made clearer and institutional capacity increased.
SANAP is an institution-strengthening program, with a focus on committees. Its goal is to help Parliament become a more equal partner in governing by supporting the three main functions of Parliament: representation, legislation, and oversight (monitoring/scrutiny).
To realize this work in a practical and sustainable way, SANAP partners with committees on current issues they are facing and uses the committee’s set priorities to organize greater civil society participation, more effective Parliament hearings, better research and reporting, and more effective budget and program scrutiny.
To achieve these ends, SANAP provides logistical support for hearings and outreach visits, sponsors Armenian and international experts, funds young professionals to serve as Parliament fellows, and hosts a variety of capacity building activities for staff. Institutionally, SANAP supports the National Assembly in its web site enhancements, in the creation of a Training Resource Center, and in the development and application of best practices and to institutionalize improved processes and procedures.
In the first year of the Project, SANAP began work with five standing committees: • Financial - Credit and Budgetary Affairs • Protection of Human Rights and Public Affairs • State and Legal Affairs • Territorial Affairs and Local Self Government • Ethics1
1 Because of its quasi-judicial nature, with authority for hearing and adjudicating complaints, the Ethics Committee’s involvement in the project is limited to assistance with strengthening its rules and procedures, and partnering with the committee to increase awareness of ethics rule among all MPs.
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 1 Beginning October 2013, SANAP expanded its work to support three additional committees: • Healthcare, Maternity and Childhood • Agriculture and Environment • Economic Affairs Starting October 2014 (Year Three of the Project), SANAP expanded its work to support three additional committees for a total of eleven committees:
• Social Affairs • Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sports • Defense, National Security and Internal Affairs In addition to its work with Parliamentary committees, SANAP works with individual Members of Parliament (MPs) elected from single-member districts to strengthen constituent links. SANAP works with the Chief of Staff’s Office in the Parliament to support process review and strengthening, as well as to institutionalize a system for staff development. SANAP also links with other USAID projects that have issues requiring Parliamentary consideration.
This Twelfth Quarterly Report covers the period between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2015.
1.2 PROGRAM BACKDROP Stronger SANAP - Parliament Relationships: During this reporting period, SANAP strengthened relationships with key members of Parliament and senior staff during a successful study tour to the Connecticut General Assembly. SANAP also further strengthened its ties with the Speaker’s Office, garnering the Speaker’s strong support for the work on program budgeting. • SANAP works closely with the Chair of the Budget Committee on program budgeting. His strong leadership combined with SANAP’s operational and technical support in all committees has helped push forward this important government reform. • SANAP led a highly successful study tour to the Connecticut General Assembly that will reinforce efforts to reform parliament rules, institute MP ethics training, enhance oversight, and support creation of a Parliament Budget Office. SANAP Budget Uncertainty: As this Quarterly Report was being prepared, SANAP learned about possible deep cuts to the USAID/Armenia budget that could have serious impact for the implementation of the program. Until the funding situation is clarified, Year Four programming options remain uncertain. As the program design emphasizes institutionalizing parliament improvements in Year Four, funding cutbacks could jeopardize gains made by the program to date.
2 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
2.0 KEY ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD
2.1 SUMMARY
During the reporting period: SANAP made significant progress implementing program budgeting reforms. SANAP led a very successful study tour to the Connecticut General Assembly that focused on budget office operations, hearings, oversight, civil society engagement, and strengthened administration. SANAP consolidated gains in Parliament hearings and civil society engagement, and laid the foundation for expanded work on improved parliament processes. Staff capacity improved through a staff workshop on oversight, new Training Resource Center offerings on Excel spreadsheet training and English language training for MPs. To develop a blueprint for long term capacity building of staff, SANAP worked with Parliament to develop draft core competencies for committee staff. A third round of SANAP Fellows have worked with Parliament committee staff to produce quality research and analysis. SANAP worked with Parliament on plans for a Visitor Center and on-line streaming of committee hearings.
2.2 PROGRAM BUDGETNG
Background As a program, SANAP has placed great importance on improving Parliament’s budget formulation and oversight processes, as these are fundamental activities of an effective legislature.
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 3 At SANAP startup two years ago, budget formulation and oversight were highly formalized, yet largely perfunctory exercises. Armenia used a classic line item budget that provided scant information on program priorities or expected results. The constitutionally mandated Budget Execution Report process mirrored the fiscal ambiguity, by focusing on funds spent rather than program effectiveness. As a result, Parliament had almost no role in setting program priorities and no program benchmarks to initiate effective oversight. Looking for possible reform interventions, SANAP looked to the Armenian government’s languishing program budgeting effort as an SANAP, GIZ representatives briefed the President of the National Assembly on the opportunity. This internationally progress related to the KPIs sponsored, multi-year initiative, first funded by DFID and currently by GIZ, had stalled. SANAP believed that if the initiative could be revived with Parliament leadership, the legislature would finally have an opportunity to shape spending policy. Moreover, these program benchmarks would lay the foundation for strengthened budget oversight. Reporting Period Activity By promoting program budgeting in all committees, SANAP jump-started legislative demand. Simultaneously, the Budget Committee Chair became a strong advocate and leader for this reform. The Chair enlisted the support of the National Assembly Speaker, and served as liaison with other NA Chairpersons to promote this initiative. The NA Speaker voiced his support and assigned a senior staff person to work with SANAP. Also, the Deputy Minister of Finance voiced support for parliament’s program budgeting efforts and pledged support from the Ministry. Moving forward, SANAP led the development of intergovernmental working groups for each committee. The working groups bring together key stakeholders including representatives of the parliament committee staff, budget office staff, appropriate line ministry and Ministry of Finance representatives. Committee chairpersons identify the program budget topics. The working groups then proceed to collaboratively develop program indicators. SANAP experts and staff provide technical assistance throughout the process. SANAP staff coordinates and facilitate the working group discussions. SANAP’s M&E expert is responsible for overall coordination and reporting to the Budget Chair. The Budget Committee Chair liaises with ministries, the Speaker, and fellow committee chairs as required. For the spring 2015 session of parliament, the goal is to develop program indicators for at least one program per parliament committee. Going forward, with SANAP support, the working groups will develop indicators for additional programs. By the end of the SANAP program, the vision is that the Armenia national budget will have program benchmarks for most major activities. During the reporting period, nine standing committees were engaged in program budget work. Working groups were organized in seven of the nine committees. Three committees completed the first round of program indicators and submitted them to the appropriate ministries (Agriculture, Social, and Economic). Four committee working groups continue to work on devising program indicators (Territorial, Health, State and Legal, and Education). By the end of the reporting period, two committees had not yet formed working groups – Defense and Human Rights. However, the Human Rights Committee had prepared and submitted program indicator benchmarks last year for the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office. The Defense Committee, after conversations with the Budget Chair, agreed to accelerate the process.
4 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
SANAP assistance has been instrumental to the program budget process. SANAP prepared preliminary reference documents for program staff and working group participants to promote a consistent program budget methodology. SANAP managed working group meetings and coordinated separate weekly update meetings with the Speaker’s Assistant and Budget Chair. SANAP also provided STTA expertise to all working groups.
Results and Challenges SANAP’s support for program budgeting in the parliament is transforming the budget process. For the first time, subject matter committees are playing a substantive role in setting policy goals and benchmarks for the work of the respective line ministries. SANAP’s work has reignited a dormant, internationally funded, reform effort. When linked with the annual Budget Execution Report review process, the development of program indicator benchmarks is increasing transparency and accountability in the system, by focusing on more transparent reporting on program results. It is also helping to shape a culture that promotes more meaningful discussion of government spending and program effectiveness. SANAP’s work with Parliament on the three rounds of program indicators currently planned will be an important step toward institutionalizing program budgeting in Armenia. However, SANAP’s continued support will be critical for without day-to-day staff interaction, overall coordination, and critical technical expertise, it is uncertain whether the momentum will be sustained at this embryonic stage in the process.
2.3 STUDY TOUR TO CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Background SANAP has worked with Parliament members and staff on a variety of activities that are designed to lead to institutional change. To further these efforts, SANAP organized a study tour for key members of parliament and staff that would reinforce central themes and program goals heading into the fourth and final year of the program. For this reason, the study tour focused on key Parliament personnel who could lead reform efforts with in the National Assembly. Finally, SANAP sought a venue that could promote these goals by providing unusually open access to the inner workings of a legislative body.
Reporting Period Activity The Connecticut General Assembly was selected as the site for this study tour for several reasons. The scale of the state legislature was deemed comparable to the National Assembly. The Connecticut General Assembly’s staff support offered systems and procedures that could serve as useful models. Connecticut offered unique oversight mechanisms for MPs seeking more insight into this issue. The timing of the visit coincided with the very active committee phase in the Connecticut General Assembly featuring many legislative and budget hearings. Finally, SANAP’s COP was a former legislator in Connecticut who could provide a high degree of access. The study tour participants were:
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 5 • Arpine Hovhannisyan, Member State and Legal Committee, Chair, Ethics Committee • Edmon Marukyan, Member State and Legal Committee • Gagik Minasyan, Chair Budget Committee • Hrant Bagratyan, Member Budget Armenian MPs and staff of the National Assembly listening to the Director of Legislative Research at the Connecticut General Assembly. Committee • Elinar Vardanyan, Chair, Human Rights Committee • Vrezh Gasparyan, Senior Advisor to the National Assembly President • Tatul Soghomonyan, Deputy Chief of Staff • Hayk Sargsyan, Head of the NA Legal Department • Arsen Babayan, Head of the NA Public Relations Department • Artur Tamazyan, Head of the NA Analytical Department
Assisting SANAP was Special Expert Advisor, David Ogle, Former Connecticut General Assembly Director, Office of Legislative Management.
The goal of the study tour was to transfer applicable knowledge from a state legislature to improve parliament support operations, legislative systems, and oversight. The 5-day visit consisted of over 30 sessions with Connecticut General Assembly non-partisan senior staff, caucus staff, legislative chairs and members, senior government officials, former Speakers and committee chairs, media representatives, trainers and website developers. Participants observed budget hearings, legislative hearings, and plenary sessions. Topics covered included:
Institutional Operations:
• Legislative operational structure overview
• Legislative Management Committee as an organizational link between legislators and support operations • Centralized research, budget, and legal drafting offices and their relationship to committees, legislators, and the executive • Operational systems - Human resources (recruitment, management, evaluation and professional development), procurement, operations, security systems and procedures, communications (streaming, Internet, Intranet) • Visitor center/tours • Parliament budget formulation support processes • Role of political staff and non-partisan professional staff
Legislative Systems:
• Managing legislative workflow – Clerk’s office, screening committees, mandatory legislative information prior to a vote (bill summary, text, fiscal and other impact statements, drafted amendments)
6 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
• Legislative drafting from idea to law – following legislation from idea, preliminary drafting, to committee and plenary approval, also considering amendment and co-sponsorship processes • Plenary procedures – rules of procedure, parliament practice manual, role of key legislative personnel, plenary etiquette • Role of civil society, constituent communication and outreach • Ethics procedures and administrative processes
Oversight Tools:
• Overview of shared oversight authorities; committee action, budget inquiry, program budgeting, government questioning, mandatory reporting • Role of Budget Office • Role of State Auditors (Chamber of Control) and links to the legislature • Legislative oversight committees – Program Review and Investigations and Regulations Review Committees • Program budgeting in practice • Non-partisan committee leadership of oversight function • Post legislative scrutiny, emphasizing mandatory reporting
Results and Future Activities Upon completion of the visit, MPs returned to Armenia committed to: Parliament Rules Reform to incorporate principles from the SANAP parliament Hearing Manual and streamlining and simplifying the legislative drafting process. Ethics Training following on information received from the State Ethics Commission. Budget Office implementation following Office Fiscal Analysis principles of non-partisan staff, access to shared budget information and professional personnel. Strengthen oversight based on General Assembly practices using mandatory reporting, deeper budget scrutiny. The Budget Committee Chair also sought to explore ways in which practices of the Connecticut Program Review and Investigations Committee could be incorporated into the Armenian National Assembly. Minority Party Protections – members of non-majority factions directly observed many of the protections for minority party. They announced that principles observed would be advocated for in upcoming constitutional reform debates. Additionally, SANAP will work with senior National Assembly staff on issues of media access, staff training, and improved procedures.
2.4 IMPROVING PARLIAMENT HEARINGS AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Background As a result of SANAP efforts, there has been steady progress in Parliament’s understanding of the strategic value of Parliament hearings, as well as the application of effective practices. Committees have also expanded their engagement with civil society, and used information from public hearings to modify and improve legislative proposals. Some highlights of SANAP’s work in this area include:
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 7 • SANAP has worked with committee staff on developing databases of CSOs and key stakeholders. • SANAP has worked with staff to support civic outreach and to develop a Constituent Outreach Handbook. • SANAP has developed a Fellows Program to increase the quality of pre-hearing issue research and post-hearing reporting. • SANAP is working to institutionalize improved practices through publication of a Parliament Hearing Manual. • SANAP is working with MPs to incorporate improved principles into National Assembly Rules of Procedure changes.
Reporting Period Activity During the reporting period, SANAP continued to work with its partner committees to institutionalize improved practices in the conduct of parliament hearings.
Parliament Hearing SANAP supported a February 18, 2015, State and Legal Committee Hearing on Personal Data Protection. Using SANAP parliament hearing manual principles, key civil liberty stakeholders and IT experts were identified and invited to participate in discussions with the Committee. Civil society feedback led to modifications in the proposed legislation. Improved Parliament Hearing Preparation Health Committee: SANAP is providing ongoing support to the Health Committee as it develops major health care reform legislation. Much of the work is focused on research at the committee staff level, with SANAP providing international comparative research and policy analysis. Going forward the committee plans to move from preliminary drafting to public discussion. For example, medical training/residency programs will be the subject of parliament hearing in early May. Human Rights Committee: In advance of a planned public roundtable in April, a SANAP Fellow completed a research report on Social Protection of Children without Parental Care and Orphanage Graduates. From the report, committee members developed a series of questions for relevant ministry officials in advance of the planned roundtable. Facebook Citizen Feedback to Legislative Proposals During the reporting period, SANAP supported the State and Legal Committee as it experiments with on- line public discussion through Facebook. A technically proficient SANAP Fellow provided support to the committee as it sought to identify goals and design a plan for outreach plan. For March, one month after start-up, the State and Legal Facebook page had 565 total “Likes.” 406 people had engaged with the site in some fashion and the page had a total reach of 2,490 people. On-line discussion presents certain challenges, but the SANAP Fellow continues to work with the committee to promote online discussion of committee issues. Community Outreach/Casework Training During the reporting period, 59 MP Assistants attended SANAP training on community outreach/casework, bringing the overall total to 83 staff. The goal of SANAP’s community outreach/casework training is to improve National Assembly staff knowledge of parliament outreach
8 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
practices and improved constituent assistance. Last year, SANAP developed a Community Outreach/Casework Manual. This year, staff training has been the primary focus of this activity. Parliament Hearing Manual Publication Last year, SANAP worked with a group of National Assembly staff to develop a Parliament Hearing Manual based on core SANAP principles and international practices. SANAP continues to work with committees to reinforce basic parliament hearing principles. During the reporting period, SANAP contracted with a designer who will prepare the Manual for publication. It will be distributed during the next quarter. National Assembly Rules of Procedure Changes SANAP supports parliament strengthening through improved practices and institutionalizing change wherever possible. During the reporting period, and as a result of the Connecticut Study Tour, MPs from the State and Legal Committee reaffirmed their commitment to promote changes to the National Assembly Rules of Procedure that reflect core principles contained in the Parliament Hearing Manual. SANAP expects to assist with the development of draft legislation in the next reporting quarter.
2.5 STAFF CAPACITY IMPROVED
During the reporting period, SANAP worked with staff to improve their research and analytical skills. Oversight Workshop SANAP sponsored a two-day workshop on oversight focused on committee experts who were involved in program budgeting and budget oversight. On the first day, the Deputy Minister of Finance and National Assembly Budget Chairman discussed the importance program budgeting, and links to more effective oversight. National Assembly Staff developed working plans for upcoming budget execution report activities. On the second day, SANAP and parliament staff discussed program oversight and development of an Oversight Manual. English Language Training Using the newly established Training Resource Center, SANAP continued English language training for 23 committee experts. The training boosts English skills, yet is also linked to developing stronger research skills using English language sources. Excel Training SANAP launched MS Excel training for 13 parliament staff members. The training is designed to strengthen staff skills so that spreadsheets are used for data analysis and chart presentation. SANAP plans to incorporate spreadsheet use in their work with committee staff around budget execution reporting. The Excel training has proven very popular and may expand in the next quarter. Constituency Training for MP Assistants SANAP regularly organizes small group workshops for MP Assistants to introduce the key concepts of the Outreach and Constituency manual. As part of the workshop, staff develop an action plan designed to help their MP strengthen community links and improve constituency casework. In the last two quarters SANAP has provided training to 83 out of 131 MP assistants. Proposed Staff Core Competencies Developed
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 9 During the reporting period, SANAP worked with external experts to develop core competencies for National Assembly staff. Patterned after several parliament plans, the goal is to set skill benchmarks that can serve as the foundation for staff professional development activities. Final revisions and presentation to the Chief of Staff will be made in the next quarter.
2.6 FELLOWS PROGRAM
SANAP’s Fellows Program has enjoyed continued success. The current round of Fellows saw placement of five new, highly qualified young professionals in addition to three Fellows who remained from the fall session. During the reporting period, Fellows worked in collaboration with committee experts on program budget and budget execution research. They also supported committee expert research SANAP team leader Tigran Tchorokhyan and fellow at the NA and responded directly to a variety of committee Agriculture and Environment Committee Susanna Gevorgyan information requests. at the certificate awarding.
During the reporting period, Fellows conducted background research for committees on topics including:
• Export-led Industrial Policy Review
• Review of Public Procurement System in Armenia and the International Practice
• Cross-country Comparison on Turnover Tax and Documentation
• International practice of Tax Exemptions and Privileges
• Definition of Palliative Care for Children and Similarities/Differences From Adult Palliative Care
• International Practice on Defining Emergency Medical Services
• Licensure and Board Certification Procedures for US Medical and Dental Graduates
• Study of Social Protection of Children Without Parental Care and Orphanage Graduates
• Effective Parliamentary Oversight Mechanisms in Place in the Republic of Armenia for Overseeing the Activities of Law Enforcement Authorities
• Comparative Analysis on Social Services
• Pension Calculation and Provision Mechanisms Within European Union Member States
• Comparative Analysis on Fines on Violation of Traffic Rules
• Police Service Investigations and Follow Up Work
• Report of the Parliamentary Hearing on Parliamentary Oversight over Accountability and
10 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
Transparency of RA Police
• International Best Practice in The Area of Enforcement of Traffic Fines
• Mechanisms of Calculation of Financial Equalization
• Research on Eastern Partnership Perspectives in Armenia
• Analysis of Electoral Systems of South Caucasus and CIS Member States, as well as European Countries
• Presentation on Research Tools
In all committees, Chairs have consistently applauded the work of the SANAP Fellows. Their research has played a positive role in the National Assembly, improving discussion and debate in committee as well as in plenary sessions.
2.7 VISITORS CENTER AND LIVE COMMITTEE HEARING STREAMING
During the reporting period, SANAP worked with Chief of Staff on two potential projects, supporting creation of a Parliament visitor center and equipping the Parliament’s primary hearing room to enable live streaming of committee hearings. Both tasks are efforts to open the workings of parliament to the public and improve citizen access to Parliament by making it easier to visit Parliament and by providing live access to parliament’s committee deliberations. The Chief of Staff’s office prepared a strategic plan for the visitor center, outlining goals and projected outcomes. On the issue of committee streaming, SANAP worked with parliament to develop a list of equipment that would be necessary to actualize this project. Future progress for both of these projects will be contingent upon available funds.
2.8 PUBLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT
During the reporting period, SANAP contracted with a design expert to assist with publication of project manuals. Working with SANAP staff, a handbook/manual design template was developed. The first publication will be the Ethics Guidebook, which is planned to be ready by May 1. The Parliament Hearing Manual will be published by June 1. The Constituency Outreach Manual will be published by July 1.
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 11 3.0 PLANNED ACTIVITES FOR THE NEXT QUARTER
3.1 OBJECTIVE ONE: REPRESENTATION OF CITIZEN INTERESTS INCREASED
3.1.1 CIVIL SOCIETY DAY IN PARLIAMENT During the reporting period SANAP held preliminary CSO Day planning meetings with key parliament staff. CSO Day is tentatively planned for June. The work plan calls for parliament to take increased ownership role in planning and executing the event. SANAP will also seek to expand the reach of the event by working with committees and CSOs to plan a series of coordinated event day meetings based on topics of mutual interest.
3.1.2 INCREASED MP STAFF CAPACITY (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 1.2) SANAP anticipates reaching work plan constituency outreach training goals by the end of the next quarter. In addition, SANAP’s Component One leader will provide ongoing consultation and technical assistance to MPs and MP Assistants as they work to expand outreach through local meetings and improved casework. Additionally, SANAP staff will continue to work with committee staff to improve civil society outreach related SANAP team leader Nune Pepanyan at the training on the Constituency Outreach for MP assistants to parliament hearings.
12 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
3.1.3 STRENGTHENING PARLIAMENT OUTREACH (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 1.3)
Live Streaming Committee Hearings: Based on availability of funds, SANAP will work to support the National Assembly’s effort to live stream committee hearings by purchasing necessary equipment. Parliament Visitor Center: Based on availability of funds and viability of the plan, SANAP will work to support development of a Parliament Visitor Center. Online Legislative Comment: SANAP will continue to support this new Internet based approach through the use of Fellows.
3.1.4 COMMITTEE OUTREACH (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY SUB-ACTIVITY 1.3.A) The National Assembly Territorial Committee is preparing to receive a series of local government reform proposals. During the next quarter SANAP expects to support the committee’s efforts to receive public input and expert advice. Also during the next quarter, SANAP expects to begin planning with the State and Legal Committee on public outreach related to constitutional reform. The Chair has identified field hearing support and expert analysis as two likely requests for support.
3.2 OBJECTIVE TWO: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT IMPROVED
3.2.1 BUDGET PERFORMANCE INDICATORS / OVERSIGHT (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 2.1.1) During the next reporting period, SANAP anticipates that the first round of program indicator work will be completed. Working with the Budget Committee Chair and GIZ, SANAP will co-sponsor a parliament workshop with MPs and staff, to review progress made and discuss next steps. The workshop is tentatively planned for early June. 3.2.2 BUDGET SPENDING OVERSIGHT (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 2.2.2) During the next reporting period, SANAP will work with committees to enhance their capacity to review and discuss the annual Budget Execution Report. SANAP will work with committees to link their work on program indictors to budget oversight. SANAP staff will work with committee staff to help them draft relevant questions to ministry officials in advance of joint meetings with the Budget Committee. Also, SANAP will work to transfer a greater share of research and analysis from SANAP experts to committee experts. 3.2.3 OVERSIGHT MANUAL (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 2.2.3) The SANAP Oversight Manual Draft is anticipated for National Assembly review by the end of the July or August. Development has been delayed as key SANAP staff have focused on program budgeting. With program indicator development for the spring session wrapped up by May, it is expected that a draft Oversight Manual can be ready in the next quarter.
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 13 3.3 OBJECTIVE THREE: COMMITTEE ANALYTICAL CAPACITIES INCREASED
3.3.1 EXTERNAL ANALYTICAL SUPPORT FOR STAFF AND MPS (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 3.1) SANAP will continue to provide external analytical expertise to support the work of partner committees as requested and appropriate to advance the goals of the program. 3.3.2 TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 3.2)
Training will continue during the next Staff of standing committees of the National Assembly at the training on quarter, focused on English language budget oversight and KPIs training, Excel training and Constituent Outreach Training. A new module on research will be added, as will English training for a small group of MPs. 3.3.3 FELLOWS PROGRAM (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 3.3) The Fellows Program will continue through June, 2015, when the current session of Parliament ends. Recruitment for future Fellows is planned in late August/early September, subject to availability of funding.
3.4 OBJECTIVE FOUR: COMMITTEE RULES AND PROCEDURES MADE CLEARER AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY INCREASED
3.4.1 PARLIAMENT HEARING MANUAL (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 4.1) The Parliament Hearing Manual will be published and distributed during the next quarter. Basic design work is completed.
3.4.2 PARLIAMENT STAFF MANUAL (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 4.3)
Work on staff skill competencies has been drafted and will be presented to the Chief of Staff during the upcoming quarter. Parliament Staff Manual progress will rest on the program budget outlook and parliament demand. If there is sufficient demand, yet budget constraints prevent commissioning outside experts, SANAP will consider a National Assembly staff working group approach similar to the one taken for the development of the Parliament Hearing Manual.
3.4.3 COMMITTEE RULES CHANGES (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 4.4) As a result of the Connecticut General Assembly study tour, participants of the State and Legal Committee are committed to drafting changes to the Rules of Procedure that embody principles of the
14 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
SANAP parliament Hearing Manual. SANAP will assist them in this drafting effort, and a draft law change anticipated during the next quarter.
3.4.4 ETHICS GUIDEBOOK (WORK PLAN ACTIVITY 4.5) The Ethics Guidebook will be published and distributed during the next quarter. Design work is complete. 3.4.5 PARLIAMENT HEARING MANUAL The Parliament Hearing Manual text has been finalized, with additional review by two committees completed during the current quarter. Basic design work is complete. The Manual will be published and distributed by the end of the upcoming quarter.
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 15 ANNEX I: QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
16 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
ANNEX II: MEDIA CLIPS
http://www.parliament.am/news.php?cat_id=2&NewsID=7262&year=2015&month=03&day=04&lang=eng
04.03.2015 Galust Sahakyan Receives the US Newly Appointed Ambassador On March 4 the RA NA President Galust Sahakyan received Richard Mills, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Armenia.
Galust Sahakyan congratulated the Ambassador on the occasion of beginning the diplomatic mission in Armenia. The NA President expressed hope that the Ambassador’s activity will be marked with the rapprochement of the Armenian-American relations.
The Head of the parliament highlighted the development of 1 / 1 the relations with the USA and the deepening of cooperation in different spheres. Galust Sahakyan highly assessed the continuous support of the USA directed to the strengthening of democratic institutes, civil society, the implementation of reforms and economic development. He also emphasized the role of the US in the process of the regional security, preservation of stability, as well as the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict as an OSCE Minsk Group Co- Chair country.
Talking about the events dedicated to the Armenian Genocide Centennial the President of the National Assembly has noted that the participation of the US high-ranking delegation is expected. Galust Sahakyan has also touched upon Armenia-USA inter-parliamentary relations and the USAID funded Support to the National Assembly of Armenia Program (SANAP) which began in 2012.
Ambassador Richard Mills has assured that the United States continues to remain Armenia’s friend and is resolutely determined to maintain peace in the region.
Touching upon the events dedicated to the Armenian Genocide Centennial the Ambassador has noted that the American people stand next to the Armenian people, and they realize the importance of the commemoration events, as all the goodwill people around the world realize it. http://en.a1plus.am/1209350.html
(video available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXMFzXLQGKA)
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 17 18:08 | April 10, 2015 | Politics
Arpineh Hovhannisyan, NA deputy from the Republican Party of Armenia, Chair of the NA Ad-hoc Committee on Ethics who visited recently the State of Connecticut, USA as part of the tour organized by the USAID Armenia mission shares her findings.
In her interview to A1 Plus she mentioned that during her visit to the USA in the capacity of the chair of the NA Ad-hoc Committee on Ethics she understood that the practice of reviewing by the committee on ethics issues involving the observance or non-observance of this or that rule of conduct for parliamentarians actually does not exist there. ‘at the time of our visit they reviewed – in the context of ethics – cases which today are the competence of the Commission of Ethics of High Rank Officials. Issues that fall within the competence of the NA Committee are outside the jurisdiction of their Committee on Ethics. They regard the issue of responsibility in the context of political responsibility. For example, they review a case when a parliament member crosses the street under red light or swears and this kind of behavior is criticized and covered in media’.
In her opinion, in institutional terms Armenian legal regulations are similar to the approaches applied in European countries: ‘But within this scope of international cooperation it is important to see the differences which are explained by the mentality and culture of a nation. Over time we also will reach the conclusion that in fact for observing the code of ethics or condemning an ethical behavior, it is not necessary to have in place a committee or any other condemning body’.
The deputy does not deny that international cooperation and assistance from various donors are more effective at the level of governments, and that cooperation between parliaments is not regarded as equally important. ‘However, based on our experience and also this format of cooperation, I think that cooperation should also focus on the parliamentary format. Besides, after this visit we have formed our vision for proposing legislative amendments, and in the near future we will also develop a guide’.
As to the RA Ad-hoc Committee on Ethics, according to Arpineh Hovhannisyan, it has a constraining, preventative or rule-setting role. As a matter of fact, during her office as the Committee chair only one request was reviewed by the said Committee, and while there were numerous publications in mass media on specific cases associated with this or that behavior of parliament members, no requests were filed with the Committee: ‘In the Armenian reality people have a clear understanding of the concept of
18 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
responsibility: it should be palpable, more tangible, condemning, either in the form of administrative or financial penalty or criminal-legal punishment. Ethical implications do not seem to be very satisfactory for the other involved party. The fact of making a case public itself is an implication when a behavior is presented in an unfavorable light or it is publicized that a person has infringed this or that rule. Moreover, in any country of the world, especially in Europe, a committee on ethics can do no more that issue its conclusion and publicly express its attitude to a case when a parliamentarian has misbehaved.’ http://www.parliament.am/news.php?do=view&cat_id=2&day=19&month=02&year=2015&NewsID=72 26&lang=eng
19.02.2015 RA Draft Law “On Protection of Personal Data” is Debated in the Parliamentary Hearings On February 18 the RA NA Standing Committee on State and Legal Affairs moderated by Hovhannes Sahakyan held parliamentary hearings on the RA draft law “On Protection of Personal Data.”
The RA NA deputies and specialists of information technologies (IT) sphere took part in the hearings.
The Chairman of the RA NA Standing Committee on State and Legal Affairs has noted that this draft law has already been debated at the Committee and the plenary sitting. While debating the sixth session of the fifth convocation there were 1 / 5 numerous interpellations by the deputies, as well as it was proposed to organize parliamentary hearings for presenting the draft law wider and inclusive and implementing effective work.
During the parliamentary hearings the RA First Deputy Minister of Justice Arsen Mkrtchyan has noted that the RA functioning law “On Protection of Personal Data” does not regulate the legal regulations and mechanisms of protection of human personal data, and their lack causes many problems in terms of execution and protection of rights.
Mr Mkrtchyan also has noted that the draft law regulates the ways and demands of the protection of right.
According to Arsen Mkrtchyan, the creation of the authoritative body of the protection of the personal data is envisaged, which is called on to provide the system of elaborating the personal data, as it has obligations to present the best experience of elaborating the personal data.
Arsen Mkrtchyan has assured that this body not only should implement consistent work, but also will encourage and develop the experience of protection of the personal data.
During the debate of the draft law the deputies has put forward a series of problems and has received their answers as a result of joint debates. The RA First Deputy Minister of Justice has proposed to continue the joint debates and exchange of opinions for getting more purposeful result.
The debate has been summed up with Q & A, and the specialists of the IT sphere submitted their recommendations.
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 19 http://www.tert.am/am/news/2015/03/04/maruqyan/1607787 Non-official translation of the above article.
With USAID funding, 11 NA deputies will explore activities of the legislative body of Connecticut in US. Financed by US Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Support to the Armenian National Assembly Program (SANAP) 11 MPs of the National Assembly will be on a study tour to visit the legislative body of US Connecticut State during March 7-16, 2015.
MP Edmon Marukyan, who is a study tour member mentioned that at the interview with tert.am.
"In the frame of National Assembly strengthening program, a delegation including a group of MPs and parliamentary staff leaves for the United States. We will visit the Congress, the State Legislative Body in the state of Connecticut to explore more about the committees, their role and experience"- mentioned Edmon Marukyan.
The list of participants leaving for US is as follows Hovhannes Sahakyan: the chairman of the NA Standing Committee on State and Legal Affairs, Gagik Minasyan: the chairman of the NA Standing Committee on Financial-Credit and Budgetary Affairs, Elinar Vardanyan: the chairwoman of the Standing Committee on Protection of Human Rights and Public Affairs, MPs Hrant Bagratyan, Arpine Hovhannisyan, Edmon Marukyan, Vrej Gasparyan: chief adviser of the president of the National Assembly, Tatul Soghomonyan: deputy chief of staff – head of secretariat, Hayk Sargsyan: head of Legal Department, Arsen Babayan: head of Public Relations and Media Department and Artur Tamazyan: head of Economics Department. Link to Interview: . Interview with Armenian MP, chairman of the NA Standing Committee on Human Rights and Public Affairs Elinad Vardanayn with CivilNet, the part on SANAP’s assistance starts from 5:20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLd5vU-kXIs&feature=youtu.be
20 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
ANNEX III: FINAL STTA REPORT CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY STUDY TOUR
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 21
FINAL CONSULTANT REPORT
For
SANAP Study Tour
To
Connecticut General Assembly
David B. Ogle
March 2015
22 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
The SANAP Connecticut Legislature Study Tour group arrived in Hartford, Connecticut on Saturday evening March 7 and departed at the close of business on Friday March 13. A consultant briefing paper for study tour members was prepared and sent to the Chief of Party (COP) prior to the tour group’s departure from Yerevan (Appendix A). The briefing paper explained the American federal system and provided an overview of the Connecticut General Assembly. Based on pre-arrival conversations with the COP, some MP/staff guides and manuals addressing matters that were to be emphasized during the tour were begun prior to the study group’s arrival and, along with some other such manuals and guides that were prepared post- tour, completed during the two-week period following the group’s departure. All of these materials along with some particularly relevant documents provided by General Assembly staff were provided to the COP as appendices to this report and are available upon request.
The study tour members had a full and comprehensive agenda throughout the week of March 9- 13, with some sessions including all members of the group and others in which the members split into smaller groups for simultaneous sessions that each had particular relevance to the individual members. Chief of Party (COP) Shaun McNally provided daily updates of the meeting schedule, so they are not repeated here. Informal debriefings were conducted at the conclusion of each day’s activities by Shaun (a former three-term member, and committee chairperson, of the Connecticut General Assembly) and myself (27 years as the General Assembly’s Executive Director, or chief of staff).
I would see the overall goal of the study tour as being to enhance an institutional identity of the National Assembly of Armenia as an independent representative assembly of the people of the country by exposing the study tour members to an American state legislature that has, over the past forty-five years, established such an identity for itself, and has adopted rules and procedures, and provided itself with professional staff support, that enable it to conduct its business in such a manner. Admittedly, achievement of such a goal is immeasurably more difficult to achieve when MPs are elected through a party list system (which encourages primary loyalty to the party) as is the case for the majority of members of the National Assembly than it is when all members are elected directly by the people from individual districts as they are in Connecticut—and in all American legislative bodies with exception of the United States Senate.
While the informal daily debriefings indicated that the study tour members were generally very impressed with what they saw and heard from General Assembly members and staff, follow-up discussions and actions by the members in support of SANAP’s program goals will be most telling in terms of the study tour’s ultimate benefit to the National Assembly.
Eleven areas of examination and exposure were covered during the tour group’s week in Hartford. Following are my comments and observations on each area.
1. Transparency and Openness
In pre-tour discussions, Shaun briefed me on the distinct difference in mindset between Yerevan and Hartford with regard to openness and transparency of the parliamentary/legislative process— a distinction with which I was generally familiar through a consultant report on Armenian parliamentary security that I prepared through a USAID project a decade ago. In Yerevan, the
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 23 general attitude concerning openness and transparency of the parliament and its processes is to not allow for easy public access to the parliament or its documents and information resources. In Hartford, and in all legislative bodies in the United States, the mindset is to provide as much easy and secure access as possible to the facilities and members, and to information concerning the legislature and its activities.
Legislative Security. The General Assembly recently installed metal detectors through which all visitors must pass to enter either the State Capitol Building or the Legislative Office Building (LOB). The buildings are connected by an underground walkway. Most legislative activities with exception of plenary sessions of the Senate and House of Representatives are held in the LOB. The General Assembly’s metal detectors are apparently quite similar to those used by the National Assembly. But, in a meeting with the Chief of Legislative Police, who heads a force that is under exclusive legislative control, it was emphasized to the tour members that the Connecticut public is strongly encouraged to come to the LOB and Capitol to observe and, in some cases, participate in the process and that the purpose of the recently enhanced security measures is not to discourage the public from coming to the facilities or to make entrance into them overly difficult but, rather, to assure the safety of all people when they are inside the Facilities. Some, but not all, of the tour group expressed admiration for the General Assembly’s approach to access and security.
Clearly, there are differences between the mind sets of most (but certainly not all) Armenian MPs and staff and Connecticut’s legislators and staff concerning the relationship between building security and public access to the parliamentary/legislative facilities. It is certainly understandable that Armenia’s MPs and staff will be wary of allowing easy public access to the parliament building given the October 27, 1999 assassination of the Prime Minister, Speaker of the National Assembly and several other MPs and cabinet ministers by terrorists who stormed the National Assembly chamber. But the presentation by the Legislative Police Chief and some of his staff explained and demonstrated that fear of terrorism or violence need not necessitate exclusion of the public from access to the parliament or legislature. It is hoped that the that the Police Chief‘s excellent and thorough presentation might encourage at least some of the study tour members to look at the matter of parliamentary security and public access to the parliament from a somewhat different perspective.
Media Coverage. The General Assembly provides no restrictions on media coverage of its activities. Reporters and journalists are not subject to legislative accreditation as they are in Armenia. An open meetings law requires that all floor sessions, public hearings, and committee meetings are open to the public, and therefore to any reporter or journalist. Only party caucuses are excluded from the open meetings law.
A strong effort was made to make clear to the study tour members that there is no restriction to Connecticut media coverage of legislative activities and that such coverage is encouraged and welcomed. This was emphasized not just by SANAP program staff but also by reporters and current and former legislators with whom the group met. Despite these efforts, there was an Internet suggestion sent back to Yerevan by the National Assembly’s Public Relations Director that media attendance at General Assembly floor sessions is severely restricted. It is unclear
24 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
whether this was an honest misunderstanding on the PR Director’s part or an intentional misrepresentation due to a disagreement with the Connecticut policy.
The news media can be either an asset or a liability to a parliament in its efforts to represent and respond to the needs and wishes of their people. It goes without saying that the members of Armenia’s National Assembly will find it much easier to do a good job of representing and serving the people of their country if they do not view journalists and reporters as a nuisance or, worse, an enemy but, rather, as an essential element in Armenia’s political process and the primary vehicle for informing the people of the country about their parliament and its activities.
It is within the power of the members and staff of the National Assembly--as it is within the power of the members and staff of every democratic parliament and legislature--to determine, by their actions and by their treatment of Armenia’s media, whether the country’s parliament/media relationship will be positive and productive or negative and counterproductive.
To develop a positive working relationship with the media, members of a parliamentary body must first recognize and accept that the media plays an important role in the democratic process. Through such acceptance and through a similar recognition, understanding, and acceptance by the media of the role, responsibility, and processes of the parliament, the National Assembly’s members and their staff can develop positive working relationships with representatives of the country’s media, relationships in which each will fulfill its respective role and, in so doing, jointly contribute to the establishment of solid foundation on which to build a stronger democratic future for the country.
A member/staff guide on keys to development of a positive and productive parliament/media relationship is attached as Appendix B (available upon request).
Legislative Website. The Connecticut General Assembly has one of the most comprehensive websites (www.cga.ct.gov/) of any legislative body in the world. The website, which is designed to afford maximum user-friendly access, includes verbatim transcripts of debate in plenary sessions and public hearings going back several decades, individual member votes going back decades on final decisions concerning legislation in both floor (plenary) sessions and committees, bill histories for current and past sessions, the texts of all bills under consideration, and individual member website pages. The website is also translatable through Google translation into over twenty languages.
The tour group staff members who witnessed the demonstration of the website (no MPs attended as they were all at a separate concurrent session) seemed to be in a bit of denial at the extent of information available on it compared to the National Assembly’s website. There were some suggestions by the staff that the National Assembly website is just as good and just as user- friendly as the General Assembly site (the SANAP staff who attended the demonstration said is not at all true), even while they did admit that much of the information available on the Connecticut site is not available on the Armenia website.
Because the website demonstration took place at the same time as another session at which all of the MPs were in attendance, the demonstration was seen by only three or four staff who, as
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 25 indicated, did not react very positively to it. In scheduling the demonstration, it was felt most important that certain staff members of the tour group see it. With the benefit of hindsight, it is unfortunate that the schedule did not allow for at least some of the MPs to also be in attendance. If possible, it might prove very beneficial for some of the MP study tour members (and other MPs also) to view the General Assembly website in Yerevan. Hopefully, a demonstration for MPs might produce a more positive and more favorable reaction than it did for the staff members who attended the demonstration in Hartford.
CT-N Connecticut Network. The General Assembly has its own television network that is available on all of the state’s cable systems, which thereby makes it available to virtually all of the state’s citizens. The system is funded by the state government through the Legislative Management Office, but operates with complete independence. The network covers only official legislative activities and is prohibited from carrying anything of a partisan nature. Floor sessions and some public hearings are broadcast, as are some official activities of the executive and judicial branches. Tour members met with the legislative staff who handle administrative aspects of CT-N and visited its control room in the LOB.
2. Parliamentary Rules Of Procedure
As a former legislator and committee chairperson, Shaun McNally knows from personal experience how important rules of procedure—and legislator respect for them—are to an orderly and effective legislative process. In this vein, SANAP has undertaken a strong effort to convince Armenian MPs that the more thorough and comprehensive a parliament’s or legislature’s rules of procedure, the more orderly its processes, and the more carefully and thoroughly proposed legislation is examined. And just as important, it has been emphasized, is the importance of MP respect for the parliament’s official rules of procedure and a commitment and mindset to abide by them. Sessions for the tour group’s MP members focusing on the General Assembly’s rules of procedure were therefore considered of particularly high priority in the study tour.
A copy of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure was provided to all study tour members, and its most important rules were also explained and discussed by several current and former legislative leaders.
Among the most important message that Shaun wanted conveyed to the tour members is the need for a back-up set of rules to which parliamentarians can turn for guidance when a situation develops that is not specifically addressed in the parliament’s official rules. No such back-up source is used in the National Assembly, and a parliamentary or legislative body’s lack of such a source invites arbitrary and potentially unfair decision-making, and the potential for disintegration of the process. Connecticut utilizes Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, a 500-page book that covers virtually every conceivable situation that could occur in a democratic legislative body, as its back-up rules source.
Current and former Connecticut legislators emphasized to the study tour members the importance for any legislative body to have: a) comprehensive rules that provide for an orderly legislative process, b) legislator/MP respect for their rules, and a commitment to abide by them, and c) a designated back-up rules source to which members can turn when a matter is not
26 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
covered by their official rules of procedure. With regard to c), tour group members were afforded an opportunity to look at Mason’s Manual. They appeared to be impressed at how comprehensive it is, and were encouraged to think in terms of how Armenia’s parliamentary process would benefit by adoption of Mason’s Manual or some comparable source as a back-up to its official rules of procedure.
3. Nonpartisan Staff Support
Study tour members had extensive meetings with the directors and some other staff members from the General Assembly’s nonpartisan staff and received copies of many of the reports and documents that their offices produce. In addition to the legislative police (see Section 1), the nonpartisan staff offices include the following:
• Legislative Management Office. Headed by an Executive Director who oversees all nonpartisan staff offices and the General Assembly’s administrative activities. The office develops and administers the legislative branch budget, and is responsible for the State Capitol Building and LOB facilities and grounds. The Executive Director reports directly to the top six legislative leaders (the Senate President Pro Tempore, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, the Speaker of the House and House Majority and Minority Leaders). Within the Legislative Management Office, there is a Financial Administrator who has direct responsibility for legislative budget administration, and purchasing of legislative supplies and contracting for services (see Sections 9 and 11 for more detail), and a Human Resources Administrator who oversees all personnel matters including hiring, employee benefits and professional training (see Section 10 for more detail). • Legislative Commissioners’ Office. The office’s staff attorneys draft all bills and proposed amendments, provide legal assistance to committees, and incorporate newly enacted laws into the state statutes. There are about twenty attorneys and an equal number of support staff in the office. • Office of Legislative Research. The office provides research support for committees except for the two fiscal committees (see Office of Fiscal Analysis, below) and nonpartisan research for individual members. It includes the legislative document library. The office has about thirty-five researchers, all with graduate degrees, three librarians, and about ten support staff. How research information is formatted and presented to a legislator or MP is very important. If not presented in a reader-friendly format, the legislator may not read it and the efforts of the staff researcher have no value or benefit. A short guide to effective report-writing for legislators and MPs is attached as Appendix C (available upon request). • Office of Fiscal Analysis. The office provides staff support for the General Assembly’s two fiscal committees—the Appropriations Committee which designs the state budget and the Finance Committee which designs the revenue program. The office consists of about twenty-five analysts, all with graduate degrees, and about five support staff (see also Section 8, below). • Program Review and Investigations Office. The staff of this office support a bipartisan Program Review and Investigations Committee, which is the General Assembly’s oversight committee. The committee is authorized to undertake in-depth
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 27 examinations and investigations of any executive branch agency or program. The office has twelve professional analysts, all with graduate degrees, and three support staff. • Information Technology Office. The office, actually a subdivision of the Legislative Management Office, coordinates all IT matters including system development, computer training, equipment maintenance, and website development and maintenance (see Section 1). The office has about fifteen IT professionals and an equal number of support staff.
4. Partisan Staff
Half of the General Assembly’s staff is nonpartisan, responsible for providing services to all legislators and prohibited from engaging in any partisan activity. The other half are classified as partisan staff, with the majority and minority party in each house having its own caucus staff that is organized as determined by the caucus leadership. Compensation levels are determined by the leadership of each caucus, within the framework of its established budget. Caucus staff provide partisan assistance to the legislators from their caucus, but are prohibited from engaging in campaign activities. Tour members met with representatives of the caucus staffs and discussed the types of assistance that they provide to their legislators, and received samples of legislator newsletters to that are sent to constituents.
5. Strengthening The National Assembly’s Committee System
A strong and effective committee system will almost inevitably contribute to a stronger and more independent parliament and to a more equal balance of power and influence between the government or executive and the parliament. The independent initiation of public policy is not a primary goal or responsibility of every parliamentary or legislative body--particularly those that, are close to the pure parliamentary (or Westminster) model. But the initiation and review of public policy is a road down which every democratic parliament or legislature should have at least the capacity to travel should it ever wish to do so. For a country like Armenia that is in the process of trying to construct a stable and sustainable democratic future for its people, a parliament that has the capability to act independently in the initiation of public policy represents the best hope for that future and the surest protection against the abuse of government or executive authority. And, within a parliament or legislature, a strong committee system can be its most important institutional mechanism in the development of its capacity to be an effective initiator of public policy.
Connecticut’s legislative committees have more institutional power and authority and stronger staff support than do their counterpart committees in the National Assembly. All study tour members attended a number of committee meetings and committee public hearings (a bill must receive a public hearing before it can be sent to the floor of either house for final consideration). While the tour members seemed to be impressed with the General Assembly’s committee system and processes, there were some suggestions that the authority granted to Connecticut’s committees would not fit in with Armenia’s legislative and political culture (i.e., the power of Connecticut committees to rewrite the content of bills referred to them, and their power to reject bills without sending them to the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives for
28 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
consideration). Despite these expressed reservations, tour members acknowledged that even if the authority of National Assembly committees is not expanded to something comparable to that of Connecticut committees, the committees could still drive great benefit from a staff support system like that provided to Connecticut’s committees. Nonpartisan staff support for the General Assembly’s 19 committees include:
• An attorney from the nonpartisan Legislative Commissioners’ Office to draft all bills within the committee’s jurisdiction and all proposed amendments to those bills that are offered either in committee or in floor session, and to provide legal advice to the committee; • One or two researchers from the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research to provide background information on matters before the committee and to prepare a non-legal summary description of the contents of all bills sent from the committee to the floor of either house, with the summary attached with the text of the bill; and • A fiscal note prepared by staff of the nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis indicating the budgetary impact if the bill becomes law, with the fiscal note also attached to the text of the bill.
Even without any expanded authority, the National Assembly’s committees would be able to undertake more thorough and comprehensive examination of the contents of bills referred to them if provided with professional nonpartisan staff support similar to that available to Connecticut’s committees. A further benefit to be derived from such staff support would be the much increased and more understandable information concerning the contents of a bill that would be available to all MPs when the bill comes up for consideration in a plenary session.
A handbook providing suggestions for the development of a more effective parliamentary/legislative committee system is attached as Appendix D (available upon request).
6. Oversight of the Government
The General Assembly’s responsibility and activity relating to oversight of the state’s executive branch was a particular topic that SANAP indicated it wanted the study tour members to be exposed to because aggressive and effective oversight of the government’s performance is, arguably, the most important activity that a democratic parliament or legislature can undertake to enhance its stature as a representative assembly of its people.
Effective parliamentary/legislative oversight of the government helps to construct a stable foundation for democracy by assuring the best possible delivery of services to the people. And, further, by serving as “the peoples’ watchdog” over their government, a legislative body can help to uncover government corruption and, more importantly, help to protect against its occurring.
Three agencies within the General Assembly that have primary responsibility for oversight of the state’s executive branch:
• The Program Review and Investigations Committee. A 12-member bipartisan committee with three members from the majority and minority party in each chamber,
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 29 which is authorized to undertake performance audits of any executive branch program, department or agency. The committee has a staff of twelve nonpartisan professionals. The findings and recommendations of its reviews and investigations are submitted to the full General Assembly for consideration of appropriate action. • The Office of the Auditors of Public Accounts. The office conducts annual fiscal audits of all departments and agencies of the government. The office is headed by two Auditors—one from each political party, selected by the legislative members of their respective parties—who oversee a staff of 90 full-time nonpartisan auditors. All of the office’s audit reports are submitted to the General Assembly. • The Regulations Review Committee. Also a 12-member bipartisan committee that is responsible for reviewing and approving or rejecting all regulations adopted by executive branch agencies.
All of the study group’s MPs and some of its staff met with the Program Review and Investigations Committee director and staff, and with the two Auditors of Public Accounts and some of their staff. The meetings appeared to be particularly beneficial as at least one of the MPs expressed an interest in the National Assembly creating something similar to Connecticut’s Program Review and Investigations Committee.
In all meetings with Connecticut’s legislators and committee staff, SANAP staff tried to emphasize to tour members how many of the General Assembly’s committee activities that they were either observing or having described to them involve oversight of the agencies and departments within their respective jurisdictional areas, and that this serves as an important and valuable oversight complement to activities of the Program Review and Investigations and Regulations Review Committees and the Auditors’ Office.
Discussions concerning parliamentary oversight with some of the study group MPs indicated some conflicting feelings between the importance of greater parliamentary activity in this area and a feeling of loyalty to government officials who may be of the same political party or even personal friends. It was pointed out to the MPs who expressed these feelings and concerns that they are not at all uncommon in parliamentary or legislative bodies that, like the National Assembly, do not have an established tradition of active oversight. It was explained that concerns of this sort rest on an erroneous perception that oversight of the government must be an adversarial procedure and that, in fact, this is rarely how the process works in a parliamentary or legislative body that does it well. It was suggested to the MPs that, when oversight becomes an established well-conducted legislative responsibility and is performed well as in the Connecticut General Assembly, it is a process usually conducted in a cordial manner that contributes to better delivery of services to the people because it forces ministers and executive officials to discuss their ministries and programs in a frank and open manner with members of the parliament and, through such discussion, to think seriously about how they can better perform their responsibilities.
The critical importance of effective parliamentary/legislative oversight and keys to its development are addressed in a guide included as Appendix E (available upon request).
7. In-House Bill Drafting Capability
30 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
Another area of the General Assembly’s operation to which SANAP staff wanted to make certain study tour members (both MPs and staff) received a thorough exposure was its process for the drafting and introduction of bills and amendments.
The General Assembly’s rules require that any bill that is introduced and all proposed amendments to bills must be prepared by an attorney in the legislative legal office (the Legislative Commissioners’ Office). MP tour members appeared to be impressed by this procedure, with some indicating that with very limited in-house legal support and no such requirement as in Connecticut, it becomes very difficult for Armenian MPs who are not attorneys to get a bill drafted.
Some of the MPs and staff also expressed surprise at how completely insolated the Connecticut bill process is from input from the Governor and executive branch officials. It was emphasized to them that the texts of proposed bills are not subject to any executive branch review and that the only real opportunity afforded the Governor or executive branch in the bill consideration process is through the right of any citizen to provide testimony at the bill’s public hearing.
Extensive meetings and discussions were held with the Director of the Legislative Commissioners’ Office, who provided an excellent and very understandable explanation of Connecticut’s tightly structured bill drafting, introduction, and consideration process.
There were expressions from several of the tour group’s MPs and staff members of admiration of Connecticut’s process and procedures, and of a need for the National Assembly to provide more in-house bill drafting resources for members and greater parliamentary insulation from government alteration of draft bills.
The positive comments concerning the General Assembly’s bill drafting and bill consideration process and procedures, and the lack of any negative ones, would seem to indicate that expansion of in-house drafting resources and greater insulation from government interference in the drafting process would be a promising area for SANAP focus (See “Concluding Thoughts Concerning The Study Tour”, below).
8. In-House Budget Review Capability
Still another area of the General Assembly’s operation that SANAP staff had particular concern that study tour members both understand and observe in action was the legislature’s capability to undertake a thorough and independent examination of the Governor’s proposed state budget. Specifically, SANAP wanted members to understand, first, the belief of Connecticut legislators that it is the responsibility of the General Assembly to conduct such an independent evaluation and, second, that the General Assembly has the in-house staff resources to enable it to do so.
All study tour members attended two lengthy meetings with key staff from the General Assembly’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis (see Section 3), which provides staff support for the Appropriations Committee and examines the proposed budget, and with the Finance Committee, which design’s the state revenue structure. The staff explained how they assist committee members of both parties in undertaking a comprehensive in-depth review of each
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 31 executive agency’s proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year, even down to requesting justification for a request for funding of a new staff position. The staff also explained how their office undertakes a continuing analysis and issues monthly reports of agency spending and revenue income to determine whether the state will be in compliance with a state constitutional requirement that the budget end the fiscal year in balance.
Most tour members also attended at least one Appropriations Committee subcommittee meeting during which legislator members of the subcommittee quizzed officials from executive branch agencies on the details of their requested budget for the next fiscal year.
Having seen the General Assembly’s budget review capabilities and processes, some study tour members voiced frustration at the lack of any such independent capability in the National Assembly. From these expressions, it would seem that there may well be a base of support for creation of some in-house fiscal analytical capability in the National Assembly, particularly if those study tour members who were impressed with the Connecticut operation are willing to speak up and work with SANAP in explaining to their fellow MPs and staff why such a capability would be important and beneficial to both the National Assembly and the government (See “Concluding Thoughts Concerning The Study Tour” below).
9. General Assembly Autonomy Over Its Operating Budget
Detailed explanations of the General Assembly’s complete independence in control of its operating budget were provided to study tour members in separate sessions with the Executive Director of the Legislative Management Office and the office’s Financial Administrator who is responsible for day-to-day administration of the budget under direction of the Executive Director.
The Executive Director and Financial Administrator explained the process by which the Governor submits a proposed budget to the General Assembly for its consideration. The document submitted by the Governor contains both the funding level requested by each executive branch department and agency and the Governor’s recommended spending level for that agency—a recommendation that is almost always less than requested by the agency. The Executive Director and Financial Administrator explained that the Governor’s discretionary authority to recommend reduced appropriations does not apply to the General Assembly’s requested budget on which he is required by law (Section 4-73f, Connecticut General Statutes) to recommend the spending level for the General Assembly that has been submitted to him by the Executive Director after approval by the top legislative leaders. This statutory provision assures that the General Assembly has complete autonomy in determining its spending level. The Executive Director and Financial Administrator did explain that the Appropriations Committee and the full General Assembly can always reduce the legislative branch spending level in the final state budget, but that such a reduction, if made, is a decision made exclusively by the General Assembly.
The General Assembly also has complete independence over day-to-day administration of its budget through a series of statutes and in-house guidelines The Financial Administrator is responsible for administering the budget in accord with these provisions (See Section 11).
32 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
Tour group members seemed impressed at the degree of autonomy that the General Assembly enjoys over its operating budget. No one indicated disagreement or disapproval, and there were a number of indications that the National Assembly should have something at least approaching the General Assembly’s degree of budgetary independence.
10. Hiring Procedure, Employee Guidelines, and Performance Appraisals For Nonpartisan Staff
The Legislative Management Office has a Human Resources Administrator who is responsible for overseeing and coordinating all personnel-related matters for nonpartisan staff, including employee guidelines, hiring procedures, compensation schedules, performance evaluations, fringe benefits, and professional training. The Administrator reports to the Executive Director.
The Human Resources Administrator walked the tour group members who met with him step- by-step through the tightly structured process for the hiring of a nonpartisan employee—a process that goes through three steps of screening, requires that the same questions be asked of all candidates who are interviewed for a position, and is fully insulated from any partisan influences. He said that all nonpartisan staff appointments are subject to final approval by the top six legislative leaders (the President Pro Tempore, Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, and the Speaker and Majority and Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives), with the vote of at least one of the Minority Leaders required to assure bipartisan approval. The Administrator emphasized that the leaders are prevented from delaying final decision on an appointment in that they are given one week to approve or reject an appointment, with the appointment considered as approved if responses are not received within that timeframe. Both the Executive Director and Human Resources Administrator emphasized that the principle of nonpartisan staff is so well established, and recruitment process so well-structured, that virtually all appointment recommendations are routinely approved.
Among other matters addressed by the Human Resources Administrator were:
• A review of the 108-page Employee Handbook, copies of which were made available to each group member who requested one. The handbook provides regulations and guidelines that apply to all nonpartisan employees including, the Administrator emphasized, a complete prohibition on any partisan activity. Among the many other items addressed in the handbook are work hours, overtime work, vacation, sick and pregnancy leave, employee health coverage and other benefits, and employee grievance procedures. • A description of the three-part annual employee performance appraisal process which involves, first, a personal evaluation by the employee of his or her job performance followed by an evaluation by the employee’s supervisor and culminating in sit-down employee/supervisor performance discussion. • A visit to the Legislative Management Office’s employee training center where almost fifty optional training courses on such matters as improved work-related skills and leadership training are offered to interested employees.
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 33 It may be that the study tour members who attended the session with the Human Resources Administrator were a bit overwhelmed by what they learned. But they were reminded that the Legislative Management Office has developed its detailed procedures over a forty year period. Hopefully, the tour member’s exposure to the Connecticut nonpartisan staff selection and evaluation process and its employee guidelines and regulations imparted some ideas and thoughts concerning the benefit and importance of beginning to develop some similar procedures and guidelines for National Assembly employees.
A summary of the Legislative Management Office’s step-by-step recruitment procedure for the filling of a nonpartisan staff position is attached as Appendix F, and its nonpartisan employee performance appraisal guidelines are attached as Appendix G (available upon request).
11. Laws, Regulations and Guidelines for Administration Of The
General Assembly Budget
As indicated in Section 9, the General Assembly has autonomy over its own budget, with its spending level set by the Legislative Management Office (subject to approval by the top legislative leaders) with that spending level subject to adjustment by the full General Assembly when it enacts the budget for the state. Administration of an annual budget that exceeds $70 million is a major task that, if not well-organized and regulated, is an invitation to disorganization, confusion and worse. As indicated in Section 9, most of the study tour members met with both the Legislative Management Office’s Executive Director and Financial Administrator. The session on budget autonomy addressed in Section 9 also included discussion of the Legislative Management Office’s procurement and contracting practices and how the office assures timely access and availability of basic equipment and supplies for General Assembly employees and legislators.
The Financial Administrator explained that the General Assembly’s procurement and contracting procedures are fully regulated and spelled out in detail in state law (Sections 2-71g and 2-71p, q, and r, Connecticut General Statutes). The Financial Administrator’s division is comprised of four sections:
• System Support and Asset Management, which is responsible for building management and maintenance (the General Assembly controls and maintains the Capitol and Legislative Office Buildings and their surrounding grounds). • Accounting and Budgeting, which provides day-to-day budget administration. • Service Center, which handles basic equipment and supply needs (computer and photocopy equipment, copy paper, pens and pencils, office furniture, etc.). • Purchasing and Contracting, which handles all purchases in accord with statutory requirements, statutorily regulated bidding procedures, and the monitoring of legislative service contractors.
An organization chart of the Legislative Management Office’s financial administration organizational structure is attached as Appendix H (available upon request).
34 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
While there were no specific post-session comments offered in reaction to the Financial Administrator’s description of the heavily regulated and complex administrative procedures governing legislative budget administration, the tour members (primarily staff) who attended the session paid close attention to the presentation and asked a number of probing questions. This response indicated that they were interested in, and not unimpressed with, what they saw and heard.
Concluding Thoughts Concerning the Study Tour
Every meeting and session that was attended by members of the study tour group concerned aspects of parliamentary/legislative organization, operations, and procedures that SANAP wanted them to see in the hope of at least planting some thoughts among members of improvements and changes that might be made in the National Assembly. But realities must be faced and priorities must be set. So, based on my observation of study tour member reactions and comments to the meetings and demonstrations that they attended, and from discussions with Shaun, I would offer some personal thoughts concerning what would seem to offer the SANAP program the most promising opportunities for success in implementing improvements in the National Assembly’s organization and operations.
Transparency and Openness. Coming from an environment in which public access to the parliament is considerably restricted, the first morning that the study tour members entered the Legislative Office Building had to be quite an eye-opener as they passed through security into the building’s sizable atrium to find it filled almost wall-to-wall with citizens who were waiting for the start of an important committee public hearing. The tour group members were told that this is a common occurrence for the Connecticut General Assembly. As indicated in Section 1, it is certainly understandable that the 1999 terrorist attack in the National Assembly chamber will make Armenian parliamentarians wary of easing public access to their facilities. But, through their meeting with the General Assembly’s Chief of Police and the presentation and demonstrations by the chief and his staff, the tour group members were shown how it is entirely possible to encourage and ease public access to the facilities and still provide a safe and secure environment for MPs, staff and the public.
It is unrealistic to expect the study tour to lead tour group members to vocally advocate for the National Assembly to open its facilities to access by the Armenian public to the extent that the Connecticut General Assembly does for the residents of its state. But some of the MP tour members in particular did evidence admiration for the General Assembly’s practices in this area and for the professionalism and effectiveness of its police force in controlling and monitoring them. Because of the apparent favorable reaction by some of the MPs (and some of the staff too) to what they saw in Connecticut, SANAP should explore their willingness to work with SANAP in trying to increase parliamentary transparency and openness by loosening some of the current restrictions on public access to the National Assembly and its facilities.
Granting the Armenian media easier and more extensive access to National Assembly activities is another area on which SANAP might focus. A commitment from the National Assembly’s Public Relations Director to support such an effort would be critical to its success and, as indicated in Section 1 it is unclear whether the Director’s misrepresentation of the General
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 35 Assembly’s policy of unrestricted media access was based on an honest misunderstanding or a determination to maintain the National Assembly’s far more restrictive practice. It is encouraging that there were no evidences of similarly strong negative reactions from the MP members of the study tour, and they could therefore prove to be a catalyst for movement toward greater media access. But the Public Relations Director’s position on this matter must still be considered of major importance.
Parliamentary Rules of Procedure. From his experience as a legislator and committee chair, Shaun has a keen awareness of the importance for a legislative body to have sound rules of procedure, and he has indicated that he has found the National Assembly’s rules of procedure to be less than adequate. He has also pointed out, whatever a legislative body’s rules of procedure, MP respect for them and a commitment to adhere to is essential. The inadequacy of the National Assembly’s rules is compounded by its lack of any source of back-up rules to which presiding officers and members can refer when faced with matters not directly addressed in the Assembly’s rules. With regard the need for such a back-up source, current and former Connecticut legislative leaders emphasized to the study tour members that the General Assembly uses Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure as a back-up source to its rules. Tour group members were shown copies of this more than 500-page volume and, as indicated in Section 2, a strong effort was made to emphasize to them the importance of any parliament or legislature having such a back- up source.
SANAP might consider gauging how much support there is among MP tour members to take the initiative to spearhead a review and examination of the National Assembly’s rules of procedure. But in the immediate future, National Assembly adoption of Mason’s Manual or something similar to serve as a back-up to the current rules would probably be even more importance than a review of the current rules. Hopefully, the study tour planted seeds for MP tour members to take the initiative to push for the National Assembly to adopt a back-up rules source. If they are prepared to do so, SANAP could be a valuable resource in assisting them in presenting their case to their fellow MPs.
Strengthening the National Assembly’s Committee System. During the study tour, more time was spent on discussing and observing the work of the General Assembly’s committees than on any other aspect of its operation. The first key to strengthening a parliament’s or legislature’s committee system is a commitment by the members of the body to do so. Assuming such a commitment, the second key is the development of a strong professional staff to provide the committees with legal assistance, research, and independent information. The Connecticut General Assembly has such a staff, all of it nonpartisan, and a great deal of study tour time was devoted to explanation and discussion with key staff members from the three committee support offices (Legislative Commissioners’ Office, Office of Legislative Research, and Office of Fiscal Analysis). Hopefully, study tour members were left with a positive impression from these meetings and have returned to Yerevan with a good understanding of what such staff support can do to help committees play a more productive role in the parliamentary process. If they have, SANAP would be a valuable resource in assisting them in conveying this message to their colleagues. Success in conveying this message can be a start to a significantly stronger National Assembly committee system and a better examination and review of proposed legislation.
36 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
In the near term, the most important thing that could probably be done to enhance the power of National Assembly committees would be a change in the seemingly current mindset that the National Assembly and its committees should most often defer to the government and its ministries to indicate what they want included or excluded from bills. If this mindset can be altered or modified so that MPs develop an enhanced sensitivity to the right and responsibility of the National Assembly to undertake more extensive independent reviews and evaluations of proposed legislation, it could be expected that a push would follow for a strengthened committee system committees and for the development of nonpartisan professional staff to support the committees in their work.
Oversight of the Government. Some MP study tour members arrived in Connecticut with an expressed hope of getting some ideas for improvement of the National Assembly’s capability to conduct oversight of the Armenian government. Meetings held with the Program Review and Investigations Office staff and the Auditors of Public Accounts and their staff seemed to fuel this desire among at least a couple of the MPs. One said that he would like to try to push for the National Assembly to establish something like the General Assembly’s Program Review and Investigations Committee. Assistance in strengthening the National Assembly’s oversight capacity would seem to offer fertile ground for the SANAP program.
In-House Budget Review Capability. As indicated in Section 8, study tour members exposure to the General Assembly’s in-house budget review capability was a SANAP tour priority. In two extended sessions with key staff members from the Office of Fiscal Analysis, MP and staff questions indicated strong interest in the services and information that the office provides to the General Assembly’s Appropriations and Finance Committees and to individual legislators. There was evident frustration by some MPs about how comparatively minimal and ineffective they found the National Assembly’s in-house capability is compared to that of the General Assembly. I do not know how widespread this frustration is among National Assembly members, but it would seem likely that the MPs in the tour group are not the only National Assembly members who have this concern. Given this likelihood and SANAP’s considerable interest in this area, development of an in-house professionally staffed budget office would seem to be a priority matter for the program.
Human Resource Management. The staff members of the study tour received a thorough briefing on the Legislative Management Office’s highly structured hiring and performance evaluation procedures for the General Assembly’s nonpartisan employees. They were also provided with the comprehensive employee handbook and with other documents, as indicated in Section 10. While many questions were asked of the Legislative Management staff, the tour members may have been a bit overwhelmed at the comprehensiveness of the procedures and policies. But, continued assistance to that already being provided to key National Assembly staff in the development of an employee handbook similar to the one provided by the Legislative Management Office would seem to be a valuable activity for SANAP to continue to pursue.
Administrative Guidelines. The staff members also received a detailed description and explanation of the Legislative Management Office’s statutory requirements and guidelines
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 37 and its organizational structure for purchasing, bidding, contract administration, and the handling and distribution of basic supplies to employees and legislators. As with the human resource presentation, they may have been a bit overwhelmed at the complexity of laws and regulations. But given the National Assembly’s reported lack of clear structure and guidelines for the distribution of supplies and basic necessities that staff require to perform their duties, SANAP might find the study tour staff members receptive to assistance in the development of some improved internal administrative procedures and guidelines.
One final comment. Two or three of the MP study tour members suggested that future study tours should consist exclusively of either MPs or staff, rather than being comprised of some of both as in the Connecticut General Assembly tour. They seemed to feel that MPs and staff will have different interests in what they should and would want to see on a study tour. I would strongly disagree with this. In the Connecticut study tour, MPs and staff both benefitted from seeing the security operation and the media access policy. Both groups needed to see the General Assembly’s staff operations—MPs to understand what professional staff can do to assist them and staff to understand how to organize and manage an office operation. And, it is, of course, important that MPs get an appreciation of what professional staff can do to assist them, because without such an appreciation it is unlikely that the MPs will talk up its value to their colleagues and push them to expand or restructure the National Assembly’s staff operation.
Certainly, there are some sessions in any study tour that will be of more interest to MPs than staff (rules of procedure) and others that would be of more interest to staff than MPs (employee handbooks and purchasing and bidding procedures). In these cases, the group can separate into separate concurrent sessions as was done in the Connecticut tour.
In short, members and staff of a parliament or legislature must interact and work closely with each other for the process to be successful. A study tour affords an excellent opportunity for member/staff interaction and exchanges on what they see and learn and for coordinated development of strategies for implementation of changes that they want to make in their own operation and procedures.
David B. Ogle
March 27, 2015
38 SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015)
U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524 www.usaid.gov
SUPPORT TO THE ARMENIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRAM (JANUARY 1–MARCH 31, 2015) 39