Assessment of the Situation of Standard Operating Procedures in Municipal Governments in Albania, 2017

January 2018 Prepared by Foundation for Local Autonomy and Governance, FLAG

Deklarim

STAR2—Konsolidimi i Reformës Territoriale dhe Administrative—është një projekt i financuar nga Bashkimi Evropian, Suedia, Italia, Zvicra, USAID, UNDP dhe Qeveria e Shqipërisë. Projekti zbatohet nga Zyra e Programit të Kombeve të Bashkuara për Zhvillim (UNDP) në Shqipëri. Ky dokument është në hartuar në kuadër të asistencës për Vlerësimin e Situatës së Procedurave Stardarte të Operimit në Bashkitë e Shqipërisë. Ai reflekton këndvështrimet e autorëve të tij dhe jo domosdoshmërisht pikëpamjet e institucioneve të lartpërmendura.

Acknowledgements

The report Assessment of the Situation of Standard Operating Procedures in Municipal Governments in Albania, 2017 is the first consolidated effort to document the usage and quality of Standard Operating Procedures and the variety of municipal regulations in the country. This report includes key findings and recommendations for stimulating the use of SOPs in Albania.

The contribution of the Consolidation of Territorial and Administrative Reform, STAR 2, team, in particular the project manager, Edlira Muhedini, and the regional coordinators, and the municipal vice-mayors and directors who responded to the questionnaire and participated in the regional round-table discussions has been indispensable.

This assessment was undertaken by Dr Iain Wilson and Alba Dakoli Wilson, with contributions from Artan Rroji, Klodiana Cankja, Naz Feka and Tirana Municipality, through presentation of their experience at regional meetings by their General Director of Human Resources, Keti Luarasi.

This publication reflects the view of its authors and not necessarily those of UNDP and STAR.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 2

Acronyms

ADISA Agency for the Delivery of Integrated Services Albania

APP Agency for Public Procurement

ASPA Albanian School of Public Administration

CAP Code of Administrative Procedures

CoE Council of Europe dldp Decentralisation and Local Development Programme

DoPA Department of Public Administration

EU European Union

FLAG Foundation for Local Autonomy and Governance

HR Human Resources

IT Information Technology

LGU Local Government Unit

OSS One-Stop Shop

PLGP Planning and Local Governance Project

PR Public Relations

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

STAR 1 Support to Territorial and Administrative Reform

STAR 2 Consolidation of Territorial and Administrative Reform

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 3 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 2 Acronyms ...... 3 Table of Contents ...... 4 Summary ...... 5 1. Key findings ...... 5 1.1 Regulatory documents in municipalities ...... 5 1.2 Awareness and presence of SOPs ...... 6 1.3 Ambiguity of current legal framework applicable to SOPs ...... 7 1.4 SOP coverage of processes in accomplishing municipal functions ...... 8 1.5 Performance impact and municipal expertise on SOP implementation ...... 8 1.6 Compliance with and awareness of CAP ...... 8 2. Introduction ...... 9 3. Methodology ...... 10 4. Results ...... 11 4.1 Characteristics of the respondents ...... 11 4.2 Existence of SOPs and regulations in Albanian municipalities ...... 12 4.3 Compliance with CAP of existing SOPs and regulations in Albanian municipalities ...... 13 4.4 Level of impact of SOP implementation upon performance ...... 15 4.5 Level of awareness of CAP and SOP ...... 16 4.6 Level of expertise of municipal staff on SOP implementation ...... 17 5. Conclusions on perceptions of municipal staff ...... 18 6. Regional meetings ...... 20 7. Recommendations ...... 24 8. Annexes ...... 26

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 4

Summary

Law 44/2015, On the Code of Administrative Procedures (CAP) in the Republic of Albania, was adopted on 30 April 2015, with the objective of ensuring an effective implementation of public functions for citizens and the protection of their legal rights. CAP requires the adoption of municipal Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), which aim to create the necessary framework to enable an effective and efficient functioning of the municipal administration. SOPs detail and describe recurring work conducted within an institution, facilitating consistency in the quality and integrity of the end product or result. It is a set of written instructions formulated in a set of procedures that lay down what should be done, when, where, by whom and how.

To assess the situation of SOPs in Albania’s 61 municipal governments a survey was undertaken in December 2017 and January 2018. For the survey, a questionnaire was designed and included four sections: 1, Existence of SOPs and regulations in the municipality; 2, Level of awareness of CAP and SOP, including self-assessment of the municipality’s procedures to the articles of CAP; 3, Level of impact of SOP implementation upon municipal and directory performance; and 4) Level of expertise of municipal staff on SOP implementation.

In addition, regulatory documents provided by the municipalities were assessed for compatibility with CAP. Meanwhile, regional meetings were held to reinforce the concept of SOPs, discuss issues with the filling in of the questionnaire and discuss further the current situation with regard to SOPs in the municipalities and identify aspects that can be used for recommendations for future training.

1. Key findings

1.1 Regulatory documents in municipalities

The most common regulatory document reported by the Albanian municipalities is the Internal Regulation for Organisation and Functioning of the Administration. This enacted regulation was reported by 90 percent of the 59 responding municipalities as the main document currently regulating the duties of municipal staff in accomplishing municipal tasks and services. The lack of existence of a regulation was unrelated to the size of the municipality.

Desk analysis of the fourteen regulations submitted by the municipalities confirmed that the main aspects that were regulated target the setting up of a regulatory frame to govern internal functioning of the various hierarchical levels of the institution. The frame outlines the distribution of functions and duties in the various municipal organisational units, assigning also functions and duties to the administrative units. In eight cases the regulations stipulate most of the key principles of CAP as a guide in conducting municipal affairs.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 5 The purpose and objectives of a municipal regulation are mentioned in the STAR 1 model Municipality Policies and Procedures, articles 1 and 2, and are referred to in the regulations of the municipalities examined here. Most of the municipalities have also used several other elements present in the STAR 1 model: municipal logo, categories of municipal employees, duties of civil servant job positions, municipal organisational structure and units, responsibilities and duties of the organisational units, management and staff, public relations, and management of the municipal administration. A glossary of terms is provided to varying degrees in the regulations of seven municipalities, while job descriptions of administrative staff are mentioned in the regulation of ten municipalities. Elements of SOPs are rarely found in some of these regulations, apart from in sections describing utility and One-Stop Shop (OSS) services

In addition to the internal regulations, the municipalities have also outlined other regulatory documents such as the code of ethics, and those on the organisation and functioning of the municipal council, prevention of conflicts of interest, on personal data, local public safety councils, municipal enterprises, and administrative services transferred to municipalities.

1.2 Awareness and presence of SOPs

The inventory of existing SOPs among the municipalities revealed a limited understanding of such a document as a tool to define and describe concrete and standardised steps for the various municipal processes in accordance with the applicable standards and regulations established.

Slightly more than half (11) of the 20 municipalities stating that they have approved more than one SOP listed several municipal regulatory documents. The limited level of awareness and clarity over the role, form and purpose of regulations versus SOPs is clear when examining answers to Section II of the questionnaire, where responses to questions on SOPs are clearly referring to municipal regulations. This limited awareness was confirmed during the regional round-table meetings, when several municipalities requested samples and guiding documents, as well as before and after those meetings. The presentation of the experience of Tirana Municipality during the discussions facilitated by FLAG shed light on the issue of SOPs and their comparative analysis with other municipal regulatory documents.

SOPs for municipal internal processes were reported and submitted only by Tirana, Korca and Devoll municipalities, with Tirana reporting by far the largest number (140) of developed and approved SOPs. The formats used by these three municipalities share some of the key elements of an SOP, including a process title and objective, steps needed to accomplish the process, the responsible unit and other municipal units involved in the process and the applicable legal framework. Regional meetings highlighted the necessity to define procedures for several of the municipal processes, outlining in some cases lack of clarity over which department should take the lead, and at what

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 6

stage, and in which form, should the other municipal organisational units contribute. The SOPs that were provided were developed in January 2018 for asset management in Devoll, in January 2017 for financial management in Korca, and beginning in 2016 in a process that is ongoing for many municipal processes in Tirana.

SOPs for municipal administrative services delivered through OSSs, and their outlets in the administrative units, are mentioned by seven of the 20 municipalities reporting to have approved SOPs. Municipal lists reported by the municipalities for such services are accompanied by a process description containing the legal basis, beneficiary, responsible office, duration, tariff, documents required, documents produced, channels for service delivery, process mapping, detailed steps needed to accomplish the process and responsible organisational units. The basis for these SOPs—in some cases not reported by the municipalities—are the local government support programmes aiding establishment of OSSs with respective manuals of procedures.

1.3 Ambiguity of current legal framework applicable to SOPs

Identification of the applicable legal framework for municipal SOPs proved to be a challenge for most respondents. The questionnaire responses display a split opinion over the legal requirements for SOPs, with 36 percent mentioning there was a legal obligation that requires the municipality to develop SOPs, with nearly another half outlining there was no such requirement. Also, questions on the applicable legislation were the questions most commonly asked by the municipalities after they had received the questionnaire and during the discussions at the regional meetings.

The Law on Local Self-Government, the Code on Administrative Procedures, and the Law on Financial Management and Control are the key laws outlined as applicable to SOP and regulation development. The Law on Local Self-Government is explicit in defining the municipal authority as regulating municipal affairs. The Code of Administrative Procedures, mentioned by several respondents, outlines the administrative procedures as a list of concrete administrative steps prepared and approved by the public entity. Administrative procedures are also elaborated further for the OSSs. The Law on Financial Management and Control was referred to by the municipalities several times in responses to the questionnaire and also in the regional discussions. SOP formats prepared for implementation of this law are regarded as a priority by municipalities and seem to provide the most articulating example of SOPs in the legal framework. The municipalities also mention that SOPs for specific areas of services are mentioned in legal acts related to the sector.

Despite the enumeration of legal acts that can be used as a reference, regional meetings, as well as questionnaire responses, demonstrate the lack of clarity over legal obligations and guidelines that can support the municipalities in elaborating SOPs.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 7 1.4 SOP coverage of processes in accomplishing municipal functions

The most diverse set of SOPs regulating internal processes has been developed by Tirana Municipality. Defining such processes is an effort still to be carried out by most municipalities, and currently there is no guiding framework for the identification process. The other municipalities have provided SOPs focused on financial management procedures, whereby the respective law is provided, followed by further instructions of the minister, the request for SOPs and respective formats, including those for the audit trace.

Sustained efforts are being made in the meantime for developing SOPs for municipal administrative services delivered through OSSs. The example of a regulatory framework accompanying front office services offered by ADISA, with a defined methodology for classifying and coding services, and providing standard models for service application forms, outlines that provision of OSSs as part of the public service reform is a priority. Similar tools are being developed in the municipalities with the support of STAR, PLGP and dldp, as reported by the municipalities that have or are preparing a list of public services, and accompanying them with respective SOPs.

1.5 Performance impact and municipal expertise on SOP implementation

Thirty-four percent of responding municipalities report a contribution of SOPs in increasing overall performance in two respects: service delivery for citizens and municipal staff performance. Improvement of services, transparency and OSSs is reported in one third (10 out of 30) of the examples reported by municipalities. However, improvement in overall staff performance is reported in only thirteen percent of examples. These results are aligned with the inventory of existing SOPs in the municipalities, where the main contributions are focused on OSS services delivered to citizens.

With regard to opinions expressed by municipalities on the impact of SOPs on performance, no examples of indicator values used for measuring staff performance, citizens’ perception or service performance were provided. Limited capacities to define impact indicators for SOP implementation are also related to the limited training received for SOP development and implementation. Such training received was reported by only one municipality, while none of the municipalities with an SOP has received an SOP-related training in the last three years.

1.6 Compliance with and awareness of CAP

Compliance with 46 key articles of CAP was reported by municipalities, with 42 percent of respondents indicating they understood the connection between the articles and the regulation, or SOP, that regulates the functions and services the municipality provides. In addition, 86 percent of respondents estimated that their staff were aware of the requirements of CAP in their daily work,

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 8

with 80 percent assessing that requirements of CAP are reflected in the tasks and operations for the services and products delivered by the municipality.

Nevertheless, the desk analysis—screening of regulations and SOPs provided by the municipalities against six key principles of CAP—singled out only Tirana and Dropull municipalities with a good rating for the mention of all six principles, though nearly 60 percent of regulatory documents screened covered at least three of these key articles. Regional focus group discussions also highlighted the limited knowledge of CAP and also the lack of secondary legislation that would support municipalities in implementing its requirements.

2. Introduction

Law 44/2015 ‘On the Code of Administrative Procedures in the Republic of Albania’ was adopted on 30 April 2015, with the objective of ensuring an effective implementation of public functions for citizens and the protection of their legal rights. The Code requires the adoption of municipal SOPs, which aim to create the necessary framework to enable an effective and efficient functioning of the municipal administration. Article 3 of the Code defines an administrative procedure as the activity of a public organ undertaken in order to prepare and adopt concrete administrative actions, and their execution and review by legal administrative remedies. SOPs are meant to promote professionalism and consistency in the exercising of municipal functions, in accordance with the principles of legality, accountability and transparency. Support to Territorial and Administrative Reform (STAR 1) took a first step towards developing and introducing some elements of SOPs through drafting models of municipal policies and procedures, among others. Based on preliminary findings slightly more than half of Albania’s municipalities were thought to have in place a SOP or were in process of adopting one, but of varying standards and levels of implementation. To follow up this first step, a survey was undertaken by FLAG in December 2017 and January 2018 to assess the situation of SOPs in the municipal governments. The findings will enable the project Consolidation of Territorial and Administrative Reform (STAR 2) to assist municipalities in developing, implementing and maintaining SOPs. A questionnaire was developed by FLAG as a tool to undertake the survey, backed up with a series of workshop meetings held with the individual municipalities in their respective county.

SOPs detail and describe recurring work conducted within an institution, facilitating consistency in the quality and integrity of the end product or result. It is a set of written instructions formulated in a set of procedures that lay down what should be done, when, where, by whom and how.1

The present assessment is the first deliverable for STAR 2 implemented by FLAG. The second

1 Part of ISO Quality Management systems, and employed by e.g. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). EPA/600/B-07/001. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC 20460

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 9 deliverable is a model template SOP that the FLAG team developed based upon sample SOPs already in use in Albanian municipalities, elaborated further from the STAR project, covering internal policies and procedures, the legal framework, model job descriptions and other relevant information, for which SOPs implemented in other European countries were consulted.

3. Methodology

The assessment aimed to encompass the range of regulatory documents in the 61 municipalities to- date. FLAG cooperated closely with the regional network of STAR coordinators, in order to carry out as thorough an inventory as possible.

The methodology included initial desk research and the development of a monitoring matrix to assess compatibility of municipal regulations and SOPs with CAP. The matrix formed part of a self- assessment questionnaire filled in by the target group: municipal policy makers and managers. The questionnaire was the first of three tools that were employed, with the others being analysis of the regulatory documents submitted by the municipalities and the holding of regional focus group discussions.

The questionnaire (Annex 1) includes four sections, in addition to one that gathered information on the respondents. Each municipality was asked to request a vice-mayor and the director of a directory (preferably human resources or legal) to fill in the form. The four sections are: 1, Existence of SOPs and regulations in the municipality; 2, Level of awareness of CAP and SOP, including self-assessment of the municipality’s procedures to the articles of CAP; 3, Level of impact of SOP implementation upon municipal and directory performance; and 4) Level of expertise of municipal staff on SOP implementation. Furthermore, each municipality was requested to attach an SOP (where one existed) or municipal regulation for examination by the FLAG team for compliance with the Code on Administrative Procedures, in addition to the above-mentioned self-assessment.

Section 1, Existence of SOPs in the municipality, provides information on the SOPs that exist in the local government unit (LGU) responding to the questionnaire. It gives data on the number of SOPs or other regulatory documents in each LGU, provides an example from each municipality, and whether guidelines, staff and teams with assigned responsibility exist for developing SOPs. The section identifies where in Albania any SOPs exist, whether the municipalities have the capacity to develop them and examples of SOPs that exist in each municipality. This section was filled in by a vice-mayor of the municipality.

Section 2, Level of awareness of CAP and SOP, provides information on the level of awareness and knowledge of CAP and SOPs at the municipal, directory and staff levels, whether CAP requirements are reflected in the daily tasks and procedures, whether training for staff in CAP has taken place, and if so when and by whom. It also gathers information on the number of SOPs that exist for the

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 10

different municipal functions and whether they comply with the articles of CAP. This section was filled in by both the vice-mayor and the director, apart from a matrix that compared CAP articles with the municipal functions (2.5), which was filled in by all relevant directors.

Section 3, Level of impact of SOP implementation upon municipal performance, provides information on whether municipal policies and processes are reflected in SOPs, whether the SOPs have improved the performance of the municipalities, their various directories and staff, whether they have led to improved customer satisfaction, efficiency, communication and operations, whether implementation of the SOPs is monitored and assessed, necessary changes reported, and whether they have led to improved quality of services and products. This section was filled in by both the vice-mayor and the director.

Section 4, Level of expertise of municipal staff in SOP implementation, provides information on whether municipal directors and staff have been involved in writing an SOP, whether training in this has taken place, and if so, by whom, the numbers of staff trained, and whether staff are empowered to follow the requirements of the SOPs. This section was filled in by the director.

The Code of Administrative Procedures was attached to the questionnaire.

The information gathered from the questionnaire-based survey of the 61 municipalities was complemented with information obtained from discussions held at twelve regional meetings, which between them gathered together representatives from 57 of the 61 municipalities.

4. Results

Fifty-nine of the 61 municipalities returned the questionnaire, filled in to at least some extent. Only Gjirokaster and Kavaja did not return the questionnaire. The total number of civil servants was 3,994 for the 47 municipalities that reported a number, with a mean of 85 per municipality and median (middle value) of 41, ranging from 6 (Pustec) to 910 (Tirana).

4.1 Characteristics of the respondents

Of the 53 vice-mayors that filled in the questionnaire, 43 (81%) were male and 10 (19%), female. Of the 54 directors that filled in the questionnaire (though in some municipalities more than one director filled in the form) 21 (39%) were male, and 33 (61%), female. The majority (60%) of directors headed a directory responsible for legal issues, another 58 percent for HR, with others responsible for public procurement, taxes, finance, PR, public information, EU integration, internal services, persons with disabilities, or IT. Twenty-five (41%) of the 61 municipalities had a directory that combined at least two of these functions, quite often HR and legal issues.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 11 4.2 Existence of SOPs and regulations in Albanian municipalities

Twenty (33%) of the country’s 61 municipalities stated that they have approved at least one SOP, with 38 (62%) stating they had none, and one (2%) not providing an answer, in addition to the two LGUs that did not return the questionnaire. (Q1.1)

Of the 20 LGUs with an approved SOP, 18 (90%) said their staff had access to the SOPs, with only one replying in the negative, and one not providing an answer. (Q1.1.1)

Six of the 20 LGUs reporting having a single approved SOP, three reported having four SOPs (Klos, Tropoje and Vau i Dejes), two each reported having five (Devoll and Shkodra) and seven (Kelcyre and Pogradec) SOPs, one each reported having three (Lezha), eight (Permet), nine (Kukes), eleven (Elbasan), 35 (Korca) and 140 (Tirana, with another 129 in the process of being approved) (Q1.1.2). One LGU stated they had an approved SOP but did not state how many, while one LGU reported zero for the number of SOPs.

Devoll, Korca and Tirana attached copies of at least one SOP, while Belsh, Klos, Lezha, Permet and Tropoje attached a municipal regulation. Meanwhile, Bulqize, Diber, Dropull, Fier, Kruja, Kurbin, Mallakaster, Mat and Mirdita, which stated they did not have an SOP, attached a municipal regulation. (In addition, a SOP implemented by Berat municipal staff was shown to the FLAG team during the regional meetings; see below.) The SOPs that were provided were developed in January 2018 for asset management in Devoll, in January 2017 for financial management in Korca, and beginning in 2016 in a process that is ongoing for many municipal processes in Tirana. (Q1.3)

Most municipalities (53; 90% of respondents) reported the main regulatory document that they have in force, guiding staff tasks and work to deliver services, was the municipal internal regulation, followed by instructions from the mayor (8 mentions), regulation on code of ethics, job descriptions, annual work plan, mid-term budget, regulation on the council, regulations on services and on sectors, and decisions of the council and mayor, as well as various strategies and plans. (Q1.2)

Of the 20 LGUs stating they had a SOP, seven (Cerrik, Fushe-Arrez, Pogradec, Tirana, Tropoje, Vau i Dejes and Vora) claimed to have guidelines, templates and methodology for SOP development, as did Dropull though it did not claim to have an approved SOP, while Tirana stated it only had an approved template (Q1.4). Each of these municipalities said they had assigned responsibility to implement the guidelines and methodology for SOP development to a member of staff, apart from Tirana, where the responsibility was assigned to one person in each department. Comparing these answers to those for 1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.3, it is clear that most of these respondents were referring to municipal regulations. (Q1.4.1)

Twenty-one municipalities stated that they had established a team to identify and write down multi- tasked and cross-departmental work processes for services and products it delivers, though eleven

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 12

of these LGUs had yet to approve an SOP. (Q1.5)

Thirty-nine of the municipalities (66% of respondents) claimed that they followed well documented and formally mapped key work processes and operations for the services and products it delivers. Thirteen municipalities (21%) stated otherwise, and seven (11%) did not provide an answer, in addition to the two that failed to return the questionnaire. (Q1.6)

4.3 Compliance with CAP of existing SOPs and regulations in Albanian municipalities

Documentation evidence

As mentioned above (Q1.3) three municipalities–Devoll, Korca and Tirana–submitted an SOP, while another fourteen LGUs submitted a municipal regulation. For analysis of the quality of the SOPs and regulations submitted by the municipalities a grid was drawn up in which each of the SOPs and municipal regulations were scanned for mention of the articles laid down in CAP. Six articles were selected for sampling the full database, given their relative importance against the full set of 187 articles in CAP. Assessment of each SOP and regulation was undertaken through assigning a score— A, good; B, some; and C, none—with regard to mention of each individual article. The selected articles were: 5, principle of transparency; 8, protection of confidentiality; 13, fairness and impartiality; 30, conflict of interest; 53, time limits for procedure (as set out in specific law on issue); 148, forms of notification.

Ten of the municipal documents covered well at least three of the six articles (Table 1).

Table 1. Municipalities coverage of six selected CAP articles in their regulations or SOPs

Municipality Score Tirana, Dropull 6A Mirdite 5A, 1B Bulqize, Fier, Mallakaster 5A Kruje 4A, 2B Diber, Klos 4A, 1B Belsh 3A, 1B

The SOP analysed from Tirana Municipality and the regulation from Dropull each scored A for each of the six articles. The regulation from Mirdita scored 5 As and a B, and those from Fier, Bulqize and Mallakaster also received 5 As, with Fier not mentioning protection of confidentiality, and the other two not mentioning forms of notification.

The article that received most coverage was the principle of transparency (Table 2), followed by the time limits for a procedure as set out in the relevant law. Conflict of interest received good coverage

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 13 by eight municipalities and some coverage by another five LGUs. Fairness and impartiality received good coverage by nine municipalities, and some coverage by one LGU.

Table 2. Coverage of six CAP articles by the municipalities that submitted a regulation or SOP

CAP Article Good coverage Some coverage No coverage 5, principle of transparency 13 0 4 8, protection of confidentiality 7 3 7 13, fairness and impartiality 9 1 7 30, conflict of interest 8 5 4 53, time limits for procedure 11 3 3 148, forms of notification 6 3 8

In all, only Tirana produced (at least one) SOP that met the requirements of the Code of Administrative Procedures, though the potential for drawing on the good quality of the regulations present in another dozen or so municipalities exists and can be drawn upon and developed.

In developing their regulations, Albanian municipalities have followed a traditional structure, and have followed reference publications in Albania, including the model regulation developed by STAR 1. In addition to policies and rules to guide a well functioning of the municipal administration, some of the regulations examined here include extensive statements of the legislation on the functions and responsibilities of municipal government, work procedures for delivering administrative and other services, with elements of SOPs, job descriptions, standards of service and technical aspects of service delivery, as well as legal requirements for exercising horizontal and support functions.

The purpose and objectives of a municipal regulation are mentioned in the STAR 1 model Municipality Policies and Procedures, articles 1 and 2, and are referred to in the regulations of the municipalities examined here. Most (10) of the municipalities have also used several other elements present in the structure of the STAR 1 model, including use of the municipal logo, categories of municipal employees (political officials, civil servants, administrative staff), duties of civil servant job positions (general secretary, director general, director, head of sector, specialist), municipal organisational structure and units, responsibilities and duties of the organisational units, management and staff, public relations (communication, one-stop shop service), and management of the municipal administration. Mat Municipality refers to the STAR 1 model more substantially with regard to structure and content, while on the other hand Kurbin Municipality does not use the model elements at all.

A glossary of terms is provided in the regulations of seven municipalities. In four of these—Kurbin,

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 14

Mat, Mallakaster and Kruje—the glossary is extensive,2 while in three—Fier, Diber, Belsh—it is brief.

Job descriptions of administrative staff are mentioned in the regulation of ten municipalities—Belsh, Bulqize, Diber, Dropull, Fier, Klos, Kruje, Kurbin, Mallakaster, Mat—but not mentioned in the others.

Meanwhile, elements of SOPs are found only rarely in some of these regulations, apart from in sections describing utility services and One-Stop Shop services

Questionnaire analysis

Questions 1.4 to 1.6 deal with guidelines, templates and methodology for SOP development, assignment of responsibility for SOP development, and the setting up of a team to identify and record work processes (see Section 4.2). Only eight LGUs (13%) reported that they had, and 49 (80%) stated that they did not have, guidelines, templates and methodology for SOP development (Q1.4). Of those that had such means for SOP development, apart from the case of Tirana Municipality, all had assigned the responsibility to a staff member. In the case of Tirana, the responsibility was assigned to one person in each department. (Q1.4.1).

4.4 Level of impact of SOP implementation upon performance

From the 20 municipalities reporting that they had an approved SOP, 16 vice-mayors reported that their current municipal policies and processes were clearly reflected in the SOPs, including those of Devoll and Tirana, who both provided at least one sample SOP. Another five municipalities reported that their current municipal policies and processes were clearly reflected in the SOPs even though they stated they did not have an SOP. (Q3.1)

Meanwhile, all 20 vice-mayors reporting having an SOP claimed that the SOPs have contributed to increased overall performance of the municipality. (Q3.2) Examples included improved services (5 times), improved standards and improved management (4 times each), improved transparency and accountability (3 times) and a better functioning of the fiscal package and of OSSs (twice each). Many other examples were reported. (Q3.2.1)

These 20 vice-mayors also thought SOPs had led to increased citizen satisfaction with municipal services and products (as did 8 vice-mayors who reported not having an SOP) (Q3.3). Nineteen vice- mayors (1 disagreed) thought it had provided clear direction and sufficient detail to staff to do their job correctly and ensure beneficiary satisfaction (Q3.4).

2 This glossary is replicated from the municipal regulation template produced by the Compass programme in 2004: http://www.flag-al.org/Flag- AL_ORG_files/manuals/Model%20Internal%20Regulation%20for%20Municipalities.pdf

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 15 Nineteen directors thought that SOPs had provided more efficiency and effectiveness in their directory delivering services and products (though so did 6 directors in municipalities without an SOP) (Q3.5), improved communication between directory staff and the beneficiaries of services or products (as did the same 6 directors in municipalities without an SOP) (Q3.6)

Of the 20 municipalities with an SOP, ten directors thought that SOPs had helped integrate their directory operations very much, and eight thought they had helped somewhat. (Q3.7) Seventeen of them said that implementation of their SOPs was monitored, two that it was not monitored and one did not answer this question. (Q3.8)

Eighteen directors of municipalities reporting having an SOP thought that their staff reported to them on changes required when they saw an opportunity, problem or concern that affected the SOPs. (Q3.9) Ten directors thought the SOPs had very much helped integrate their directory operations with those of other directories, seven, to some extent, and one, very little. (Q3.10)

Ten directors of municipalities reporting having an SOP thought they had very much improved communication between their directory and the other directories, and eight, to some extent. (Q3.11) Thirteen directors thought SOPs had very much contributed to maintaining standards in the quality of their services and products, four, to some extent, and one, very little (Q3.12)

Sixteen directors of municipalities reporting having an SOP thought they were very well implemented in their directory, and three, to some extent. (Q3.13) Six directors of municipalities reporting having an SOP thought the municipality conducted impact assessments of implementation of their SOPs, and ten thought it did not. (Q3.14)

4.5 Level of awareness of CAP and SOP

Fifty-one vice-mayors and 48 directors (86% and 81% of respondents, respectively) thought their staff were aware of the requirements of CAP for their daily work, while six vice-mayors and six directors thought their staff were unaware of those requirements. (Q2.1)

Forty-seven vice-mayors and 45 directors (80% and 76%, respectively) thought the requirements of CAP were reflected in the tasks and operations for the services and products their municipality delivers, while ten vice-mayors and nine directors thought they were not reflected. (Q2.2)

Forty-four vice-mayors and 41 directors (75% and 69%, respectively) thought their staff had not received training in CAP. About one-fifth each reported that the staff had received such training. (Q2.3)

Ten vice-mayors and eleven directors gave a figure for the number of staff that had received training in CAP, ranging from 1 (Kolonje) to 345 (Durres; though it is clear this refers to the number of staff

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 16

who have received training in general); Tirana reported two staff members had received training. (Q2.3.1)

The most commonly reported agency providing training in CAP was the Albanian School of Public Administration (ASPA; 10 times), and to a lesser extent Department of Public Administration (DoPA; 3 times), United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and CoE (twice each), Agency for Public Procurement (APP), Eptisa, STAR, and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the municipality itself each providing such training once. Very similar figures were reported by the vice-mayors and directors. (Q2.3.2)

Twenty-two vice-mayors (36%) and 18 directors (30%) thought there was a legal obligation that requires the municipality to develop SOPs. Nearly half (44% of vice-mayors; 49% of directors) thought there was no such requirement. (Q2.4) Of those that thought there was a legal obligation, nine vice-mayors and seven directors specified the Code of Administrative Procedures, six vice- mayors and ten directors specified Law 139/2015, On Local Self-Government, and four vice-mayors and six directors specified Law 10296, On Financial Management and Control. (Q2.4.1)

Question 2.5 comprised an Excel sheet for self-analysis of the level of understanding of the link between CAP articles and SOPs that regulate the functions and services the municipality provides. Twenty-five LGUs (42% of respondents) returned the Excel sheet reasonably well filled in, indicating they understood the connection. Nevertheless, it is clear from responses to questions 1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.3 that all municipalities apart from Tirana, Devoll and Berat (who had received relevant training from PLGP; see regional meeting notes below) were comparing the articles with their municipal regulations. Seven respondents returned Excel sheets that were not filled in correctly or were left blank. (Q2.5 and Q2.5.1)

4.6 Level of expertise of municipal staff on SOP implementation

Twenty-two directors had been involved in writing an SOP, including four who work in municipalities without an SOP. Another 22 directors had not been involved in SOP writing, and all of these work in municipalities without an SOP. Fifteen of the respondents did not respond to this question. (Q4.1) Nineteen directors reported that other members of staff had been involved in writing an SOP, including three in municipalities without an SOP. (Q4.2)

Only Kukes reported that staff had been trained to write and review SOPs (Q4.3), but did not record the number of staff trained, nor the training agency. Durres reported that 345 members of staff (but see previously about this number) had been trained, by ASPA and DoPA, in both CAP and SOPs in the past three years. However, it did not report on the level of impact of implementation of SOPs on municipal or directory performance (section 3).

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 17 Nine directors of municipalities reporting having an SOP, as well as another nine directors from municipalities without SOPs, thought their staff were very well empowered to be able to follow fully the requirements of, and efficiently implement, SOPs, and ten from municipalities with SOPs, and one from a municipality without an SOP, thought their staff were empowered to some extent. (Q4.4). However, none of the directors from municipalities with an SOP thought their staff have been adequately trained to fully follow the requirements of, and efficiently implement, SOPs. (Q4.5). None of these directors reported that their staff had been trained in SOPs in the past three years. (Q4.5.1)

5. Conclusions on perceptions of municipal staff

One-third of Albania’s municipalities stated that they have approved at least one SOP: six reported having a single SOP; three, four SOPs; two each, five and seven SOPs; one each, three, eight, nine, eleven, 35 and 140 SOPs (Tirana, with another 129 in the process of being approved). However, only three municipalities provided copies of at least one SOP, while a SOP implemented by Berat municipal staff was shown to the FLAG team. Another fourteen municipalities attached a municipal regulation. Most LGUs reported that their main regulatory document was the municipal internal regulation, followed by instructions from the mayor. It is clear that there were misconceptions prior to the present project, which served to highlight the importance of both CAP and SOPs upon municipal functioning, as well as the legal requirement for municipalities to develop and implement SOPs for their daily processes. Municipalities clearly thought standard municipal regulations were SOPs. They now know otherwise, and most were very positive about the knowledge received through the assessment process and the round-table discussions, and expressed their willingness to be trained in both CAP, as well as SOP development and implementation.

To assess compliance of the existing SOPs and also municipal regulations with CAP, those that were provided by the municipalities were analysed for mention of six main articles laid down in the Code: the principle of transparency, protection of confidentiality, fairness and impartiality, conflict of interest, time limits for procedure, and forms of notification.

The SOP provided by Tirana Municipality included good coverage of these articles, as did the regulation provided by Dropull Municipality. Ten of the municipal documents covered well at least three of the six articles. The article that received most coverage was the principle of transparency. Only eight LGUs reported that they possessed guidelines, templates and methodology for SOP development, and each of these had assigned the responsibility to a staff member, apart from in Tirana, where the responsibility was assigned to a person in each department.

Sixteen vice-mayors reported that their current municipal policies and processes were clearly reflected in their SOPs, 20 that the SOPs have contributed to increased overall municipal

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 18

performance, including improved services, standards, management, transparency and accountability and a better functioning of the fiscal package and of OSSs, as well as increased citizen satisfaction. But it is clear that apart from the municipalities of Tirana, Korca, Devoll and Berat, all other municipalities were discussing municipal regulations. Nevertheless, of these most thought these regulations provided clear direction and sufficient detail for staff. Nineteen directors thought the SOPs and regulations provided more efficiency and effectiveness and improved communication between staff and beneficiaries. Ten directors thought that SOPs and regulations had very much helped integrate directory operations, and improved communication with other directories. Seventeen directors said that implementation of their SOPs (and regulations) was monitored, 18 that their staff reported to them on necessary changes to the procedures, and ten that they had very much helped integrate their operations with those of other directories. Thirteen directors thought SOPs (and regulations) had very much contributed to maintaining standards in the quality of services and products, and 16 that their SOPs (and regulations) were very well implemented in their directory, and six that their municipality conducted SOP (and regulation) impact assessments.

More than three-quarters of vice-mayors and directors of Albania’s 61 municipalities thought their staff were aware of the requirements of CAP for their daily work, and that the requirements of CAP were reflected in the tasks and operations for the services and products their municipality delivers. It was clear from the regional meetings, however, that this was not the case. Nevertheless, about one- fifth of vice-mayors and directors reported that their staff had received training in CAP, typically from ASPA and to a lesser extent DoPA, followed by USAID, CoE, APP, Eptisa, STAR and UNDP. About a third of vice-mayors and directors thought there was a legal obligation that requires Albanian municipalities to develop SOPs. Nine vice-mayors and seven directors specified CAP as the relevant law, six vice-mayors and ten directors specified Law 139/2015, On Local Self-Government, and four vice-mayors and six directors specified Law 10296, On Financial Management and Control.

Twenty-two directors had been involved in writing an SOP (for most, this means a regulation), and 19 reported that other members of staff had been involved. Only Kukes reported that staff had been trained to write and review SOPs (regulations). Eighteen directors thought their staff were very well empowered to be able to follow fully the requirements of, and efficiently implement, SOPs, though none thought them adequately trained. Indeed none of these directors reported that their staff had been trained in SOPs.

Twelve regional meetings were held that brought together representatives of 57 of Albania’s 61 municipalities. The number of participants ranged from eight to 21 per meeting. The proportion of female participants ranged from 13–70 percent, with a mean of 41 percent. Most participants agreed strongly with the benefits that emerge from the SOP process. However, development of a SOP was seen as a difficult process for the many functions that the LGUs offer given that it is seen as

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 19 dependent to a large extent upon political will, especially of central government for certain functions, compounded by staff turnover, e.g. in Kavaja following the local election in that LGU of 2017. Previous administrations were not communicative with manuals and other materials (including those developed by STAR 1) that ought to be passed between successive administrations. Municipalities reported that they process their internal procedures verbally. A lack of capacity for many municipalities was highlighted, along with a great need for training, guidance and instructions in developing SOPs and for training in CAP. There needs to be a standardisation of SOPs.

6. Regional meetings

Twelve regional meetings were held that brought together representatives (at least a vice-mayor and director from each) from 57 of Albania’s 61 municipalities. The total number of participants (excluding the FLAG team of experts) is reported in Table 3, along with the number and proportion of female participants. The number of participants ranged from eight (Diber, comprising 4 municipalities in the county) to 21 (Vlora, 7 municipalities). The proportion of female participants ranged from thirteen percent (Gjirokaster) to 70 percent (Durres), with a mean of 41 percent.

Table 3. Number of, and percentage of female, participants at the 12 regional meetings with 57 municipalities

County Total number of participants No. of female participants (%) Berat 12 7 (58) Diber 8 3 (38) Durres 10 7 (70) Elbasan 18 7 (39) Fier 18 8 (44) Gjirokaster 15 2 (13) Korca 14 4 (29) Kukes 9 5 (56) Lezhe 9 4 (44) Shkodra 13 5 (38) Tirana 11 4 (36) Vlora 21 8 (38) Total 158 64 (41)

Tirana (11 January, 09:00–11:30, Premium Hotel, Golem)

In general, development of a SOP was seen as a difficult process for the many functions that the LGUs offer given that it is seen as dependent to a large extent upon the political will of those concerned, especially central government for certain functions: e.g., an SOP for civil registry is seen as a challenge due to the fact that this is an area of concern of the Ministry of Interior. All participants agreed, however, that here is a strong need for the standardisation of services.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 20

Kavaja Municipality has a relatively new staff, only five months in the office following its local election in 2017. They emphasized the difficulties with processing SOPs as they were given no access from the previous administration to manuals produced by STAR 1. They agreed that an SOP would be helpful in determining the key functions and duties of municipal staff, even if the administration or the mayor were to be replaced, because the staff would know how to proceed according to the legislation and the set guidelines.

There were several discussions regarding the difficulties that might arise in implementing and drafting SOPs due to political conflict between central government and the municipalities.

SOPs need to be standardised and tailored towards the services offered in rural areas (administrative units). Those that are more urban have more set policies with regard to citizen services, while in the rural areas there are not many services. In addition, there was a lack of capacity for these municipalities, and a need for training in developing SOPs and in CAP.

Durres (11 January, 14:00–16:00, Premium Hotel, Golem)

Generally, most participants agreed with the benefits that emerge from SOPs, and their development. Moreover, after discussion of the experiences of Tirana Municipality, SOP standardisation was seen as highly beneficial to the municipalities. Nevertheless, Durres Municipality thought that while a large municipality such as Tirana would need to have SOPs, Durres has no such immediate need; it already provides online access for many services and functions. There seemed to be no difficulties with procedures within the municipality, and it has a regulation that defines clearly every area of a function.

Shijak Municipality reported that they often deal with their internal practices verbally, stating that the time taken to draft an SOP was a challenge. The municipality has internal verbal agreements similar to those of an SOP.

Kruja Municipality emphasised that as it was very exhausting to look through procedures and area of competences for certain services, though a standardisation of procedures would fit perfectly into their system. Nevertheless, the municipality has regulations in place that somehow fill the gap.

All the municipalities agreed that standardisation of procedures was necessary, though it would be difficult in rural municipalities, which differ greatly from urban LGUs. There was discussion on the categorisation of municipalities as specified in Law 139/2015, On Local Self-Government, with similar size municipalities having similar SOPs.

Berat (15 January, 09:30–12:00, Municipality Building)

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 21 There was lack of clarity on legal obligations and guidelines that oblige and guide municipalities to elaborate SOPs. Berat Municipality had developed SOPs with the support of PLGP. As in the previous meetings, staff involved in SOP development should receive training, there was lack of official documentation on SOPs, and instruments are lacking for implementation of CAP. It was thought to share experiences on SOPs with other municipalities inside and outside of the country, undertake training in CAP, and that municipalities need clustering by size and existence of a regulation and of SOPs.

Fier (15 January, 14:00–16:30, Hotel Fier)

Fier Municipality has started elaboration of SOPs but the process requires enhanced staff capacities, with changes needed in organisational structure and legal frame. It was thought each directory should have a person assigned to write SOPs, training in CAP could be provided by ASPA, training in writing SOPs should be arranged, the information package from STAR 1 and 2 should be made available and distributed, and that SOP models are needed, along with recommendations for elaboration of SOPs, including guidelines.

Vlora (16 January, 09:00–11:30, Hotel Palace)

Models need to be provided on how best to proceed with SOPs, adapted to the categorisation of municipalities. There is a lack of both human and financial resources to deal with SOP compilation, with each to be written by respective directorates. STAR could provide material to be used for each different category based upon international experiences. It was thought difficult to establish OSSs in these municipalities; the example of citizen assistance centres should be applied.

Gjirokaster (16 January, 13:30–16:00, Restaurant Çajupi)

It was agreed that there was a lack of HR capacities, that training in CAP and technical assistance for writing and implementing SOPs was required and that they should be adapted to each municipality. A SOP model should be distributed to all municipalities. Gjirokastra Municipality has compiled a regulation in which all procedures are defined. There is a regulation and there is no need for a further decision from the mayor as commissions, registers and responsibilities have been set up for each of the units in the municipality.

Elbasan (17 January, 09:00–11:30, Real Scampis)

All participants were positive about the need for SOPs for a smooth operation of their municipalities. Some issues they face include property rights, where citizens face challenges with different parts of the legislation, and where the municipality faces challenges to complete procedures. The participants were pleased to hear of progress with OSSs and the digitalization of archives, including training for OSS staff. Librazhd pointed out that the small LGUs need OSSs as well as the larger ones.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 22

It was thought a chart could be created for each job function. Again SOPs need to be adapted to different category of municipality. Training in CAP needs to be provided by ASPA along with a model for SOP.

Korca (17 January, 13:30–16:00, Hotel Millennium, Tushemisht)

Overall, all the participants were aware of the need for SOPs in their municipalities. They needed training in how to write SOPs, have a lack of human resources, need a comprehensive list of functions of municipalities, trainings in implementation of CAP, and creation of a chart for each job function.

Shkodra (18 January, 09:30–12:00, Hotel Colosseo)

Participants were positive about SOPs, which they agreed would facilitate work in their municipalities. The small municipalities have their own special ways in how they govern, and have found consensus among their directories, even without SOPs. Small municipalities might have difficulties in applying SOPs because they lack staff. They need an SOP model for small municipalities on which to base their new SOP drafts, training in SOP drafting, and in CAP. The administrative units also require OSSs, to bring the services closer to the citizens.

Lezhe (18 January, 13:00–15:30, Hotel Colosseo)

All participants were positive about the need for SOPs for smooth operation of their municipalities. They need training in drafting and implementing SOPs, and in CAP. Categorisation would be based on specifics of the individual municipalities. They need a model SOP upon which to base their SOP drafts.

Kukes (19 January, 08:30–11:00, Hotel America)

Participants were positive about SOPs and agreed with the benefits of applying them. On-the-job training was needed for staff to write SOPs, and in CAP. A model or template is needed for the small municipalities, with mapping of the processes.

Diber (19 January, 13:30–16:00, Hotel Veri)

Participants were positive about SOPs and agreed that they facilitate their work. They needed a model on how to proceed with SOPs, based on examples such as those of Tirana Municipality, and a methodology on how to proceed in implementing the SOPs, as well as training in CAP. The municipalities had procedures in place for job functions but there was a need for unification of the relevant documentation in the municipalities. They also expressed concern over contradictions in their competencies for the new delegated functions with no legal specification.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 23 7. Recommendations

The level of awareness and implementation of SOP and CAP in Albania’s municipalities warrants a comprehensive intervention.

An intervention approach needs designing in a way that targets cross-cutting key issues throughout the country, but that also builds and promotes solid examples of SOP and CAP implementation and impact evaluation in a number of carefully selected municipalities of different types. The following recommendations for further support in implementation of CAP and SOP address the bottlenecks highlighted in Key Findings of the present report. The recommendations can be implemented simultaneously in trying to provide for a stimulating environment to support implementation of CAP and SOPs and for provision of concrete examples.

I. Provision for training in CAP for key municipal leadership and civil servants throughout the 61 municipalities of the country. The training would ideally be provided in cooperation with ASPA and DoPA.

The training objective needs to elaborate i) the overall interpretation of CAP from the municipal affairs point of view, ii) CAP principles and their application in organisational functioning, and iii) methodologies for incorporating CAP into the organisational procedures, such as regulations, policies and SOPs.

II. Preparation and dissemination of a regulatory framework for implementation of CAP throughout the country’s municipalities. The guidelines will support law implementation and provide methodologies and work formats that municipalities can adapt in incorporating CAP into municipal procedures.

III. Provide in-depth support for a selected number of municipalities to develop, implement and monitor the impact of SOPs. Development of a customised set of SOPs will be based upon the guidelines and the model prepared at the assessment stage.

Selection of municipalities should be carefully carried out in order to provide for SOP examples applicable to municipal categories from 1 to 5, accompanied by full political commitment and support. The development of appropriate SOPs in the selected municipalities should be accompanied by continuous on-the-job training of assigned staff, and preceded by definition of key processes that will be developed further into SOPs.

It would be desirable to have an impact of the range of SOPs developed in the selected municipalities upon the overall municipal organisation. Indicators to measure such an impact should accompany the development of SOPs, along with a monitoring plan. Potential of synergy with digitalized services that would be offered through OSSs can be explored at the

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 24

stage of development of SOPs and impact indicators.

IV. Disseminate SOP models developed for the selected municipalities and capitalise the experience through a central government legal instrument to support municipal SOP development in all of the country’s municipalities.

Guidelines and examples in support of the development of SOPs need to become part of the legal and regulatory framework through an appropriate legal instrument in order to guide and encourage municipalities for endorsement.

Dissemination of examples and guidelines developed by STAR in support of SOP development should be integrated into curricula to be delivered to all 61 municipalities in the country. The dissemination curricula would benefit by bringing in illustration of the municipal application of SOPs in (new) EU countries.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 25 8. Annexes

Annex 1: Cover letter, letters to regional coordinators and municipalities, questionnaire

Annex 2: Regional meetings calendar, agenda and participants lists

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 26

Annex 1:

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 27

Prezantim i Vlerësimit të Situatës së Procedurave Stardarte të Operimit në Bashki

STAR2 - Konsolidimi i Reformës Territoriale dhe Administrative, ka angazhuar organizatën FLAG, Fondacioni për Autonomi Vendore dhe Qeverisje, për të ndërmarrë Vlerësimin e Situatës së Procedurave Stardarte të Operimit në Bashkitë e Shqipërisë.

FLAG, në bashkëpunim të ngushtë me stafin dhe rrjetin e koordinatorëve të STAR2, do të përmbushë tre objektiva gjatë periudhës Dhjetor 2017—Shkurt 2018, të zbatimit të projektit:

1. Vlerësimin e situatës së Procedurave Standarte të Veprimit në bashkitë e Shqipërisë, në përputhje edhe me Kodin e Procedurave Administrative 2. Përpilimin e një modeli të PSV në bashki 3. Rekomandimin e veprimeve të mëtejshme për të mbështetur bashkitë në procesin e hartimit dhe zbatimit të PSV-ve

Paketa e dokumenteve bashkangjitur i shërben objektivit të parë të sipërcituar. Gjetjet nga analiza e studimit të pyetësorit bashkëlidhur, do të mundësojnë STAR2 të ndihmojë bashkitë e Shqipërisë në zhvillimin, zbatimin dhe rishikimin e Procedurave Standarde të Veprimit (PSV).

Kuptimi i ‘Procedurës Standarte të Veprimit’ (PSV)

Qëllimi i PSV është që të përcaktojë dhe përshkruajë hapat konkretë dhe të standardizuar për proceset e ndryshme vendore, në përputhje me parakushtet dhe procedurat e përcaktuara me ligj. Në përgjithësi PSO-ja për procesin përkatës përfshin objektivat, subjektet e përfshira, hapat e nevojshëm për të kryer procesin dhe afatet kohore përkatëse. Ajo përcakton njësitë organizative vendore që kanë nevojë të japin të dhëna në faza të ndryshme dhe përfundon me dorëzimin përfundimtar të produktit.

Skuadra zbatuese e FLAG FLAG ka ngritur një skuadër zbatuese për projektin, për t’iu përgjigjur intensitetin dhe varietetit të produkteve të përshkruara në detyrë. Për të kontaktuar me skuadrën, për cdo pyetje në lidhje me procesin, metodologjinë apo dokumentet bashkëngjitur ju lutem kontaktoni me:

Alba Dakoli Wilson, email: [email protected], Tel +04 2270242, Cel: + 68 20 37541 Naz Feka, email: [email protected], Tel +04 2270242/ 2239611, Cel: +355 69 2890023

Paketa e dokumenteve për vleresimin e PSV në bashki Bashkangjitur do të gjeni paketën e materialeve për vlerësimin e PSV në cdo bashki. Kjo paketë përmban (i) letrën drejtuar kryetarit të bashkisë për përpjekjen e projektit dhe organizimin e informacionit në bashki, (ii) pyetësorin i cili ka pjesë integrale insruksionin për plotësimin e pyetësorit nga secila bashki dhe faqen e ekselit (iii) axhendën paraprake të takimit rajonal që do të organizohet në kuadër të projektit. Pyetësori i plotësuar dorëzohet nga bashkitë brenda datës 9 Janar 2018.

Deklarim STAR2 - Konsolidimi i Reformës Territoriale dhe Administrative - është një projekt i financuar nga Bashkimi Evropian, Suedia, Italia, Zvicra, USAID, UNDP dhe Qeveria e Shqipërisë. Projekti zbatohet nga Zyra e Programit të Kombeve të Bashkuara për Zhvillim (UNDP) në Shqipëri. Ky dokument është në hartuar në kuadër të asistencës për Vlerësimin e Situatës së Procedurave Stardarte të Operimit në Bashkitë e Shqipërisë, zbatuar nga FLAG—Fondacioni për Autonomi Vendore dhe Qeverisje. Ai reflekton këndvështrimet e autorëve të tij dhe jo domosdoshmërisht pikëpamjet e institucioneve të lartpërmendura.

Përshkrimi i metodologjisë dhe paketës së dokumenteve për vlerësimin e PSV në bashki

I nderuar Koordinator Rajonal,

Bashkangjitur do të gjeni paketën e materialeve për vleresimin e PSV në cdo bashki. Kjo paketë përmban (i) letrën drejtuar kryetarit të bashkisë për përpjekjen e projektit dhe organizimin e grumbullimit të informacionit në bashki, (ii) pyetësorin i cili ka pjesë integrale udhëzimet për plotësimin e tij nga secila bashki dhe faqen e excel-it (iii) axhendën paraprake të takimit rajonal që do të organizohet në kuadër të projektit.

Ndihmesa dhe roli juaj në proces është thelbësor, duke patur parasysh kuadrin kohor shumë të ngushtë dhe aktivitetet shumë të ngjeshura. Për këtë arsye ju lutemi që:

1. Brenda Dhjetorit të mund të percillni me email paketën bashkangjitur tek bashkitë e qarkut që mbuloni. Paketa pasi merret në dorëzim nga titullari, i delegohet për plotësim Nën-Kryetarit të Bashkisë në bashkëpunim me Drejtorinë përgjegjëse për rregulloret dhe procedurat standarte të bashkisë: Drejtoria Juridike, ose Drejtoria e Burimeve Njerëzore.

2. Brenda datës 09 Janar 2018, për secilën bashki të jetë dorëzuar pyetësori i plotësuar, së bashku me Procedurën Standarte të Veprimit apo Rregulloren e proceseve bashkiake. Dorëzimi i pyetësorit bëhet përmes email-it tek [email protected] dhe [email protected].

3. Brenda dates 09 Janar 2018, ju lutem konfirmoni pjesëmarrësit për secilen bashki të qarkut tuaj sipas tabelës së meposhtme. Përfaqesues të bashkisë, të ftuar në takimin rajonal janë zv.Kryetari i Bashkisë, Drejtori i Drejtorisë Juridike dhe Drejtori i Drejtorisë së Burimeve Njerëzore. Nëse bashkia sugjeron pjesëmarrje shtesë të stafi përgjegjës për përpilimin dhe zbatimin e PSV apo regulloreve, ju lutem na njoftoni në mënyrë që ti trajtojmë rast pas rasti.

Emër Mbiemër Pozicioni Bashkia Kontakti (tel, email)

4. Brenda Janarit do të organizohet takimi rajonal, sipas kalendarit bashkangjitur ku sigurish jeni i ftuar të merni pjesë edhe ju në cilesinë e koordinatorit rajonal.

I nderuar Kryetar,

Në këtë kuadër, paketa e dokumenteve bashkangjitur i shërben vlerësimit të situatës së Procedurave Standarte të Veprimit në bashki, në përputhje edhe me Kodin e Procedurave Administrative. Gjetjet nga analiza e studimit të pyetësorit bashkelidhur, do të mundësojnë STAR-2 të ndihmojë bashkitë në zhvillimin, zbatimin dhe rishikimin e Procedurave Standarde të Veprimit (PSV).

Kjo pakete permban (i) pyetësorin i cili ka pjesë integrale udhëzimet për plotësimin e tij nga secila bashki dhe faqen e excel-it (ii) axhendën paraprake të takimit rajonal që do të organizohet në kuadër të projektit. Rekomandojmë që paketa t’i delegohet për plotësim Nën-Kryetarit së bashku me Drejtorinë përgjegjese për rregulloret dhe procedurat standarte të bashkisë: Drejtoria Juridike ose Drejtoria e Burimeve Njerëzore. Gjatë plotësimit të pyetesorit, do të nevojitet informacioni dhe bashkëpunimi i të gjitha drejtorive të bashkisë.

Pyetesori i plotësuar, brenda datës 09 Janar 2018, dorëzohet së bashku me Procedurën Standarte të Veprimit apo Rregulloren e proceseve të bashkisë përmes email-it tek [email protected] dhe [email protected].

Diskutimet mbi pyetesorët e plotesuar në të gjitha bashkitë e qarkut, do të mbahen në takimin rajonal me përfaqësues të bashkive të qarkut. Përfaqesuesit e bashkive do të njihen me një paktikë të përzgjedhur nga inventarizimi i praktikave në të gjitha bashkitë e vendit, dhe më pas do të diskutojnë për përvojën e pasqyruar në pyetësor nga secila bashki pjesëmarrëse. Përfaqesues të bashkisë, të ftuar në takimin rajonal janë zv.Kryetari i Bashkisë, Drejtori i Drejtorisë Juridike dhe Drejtori i Drejtorisë së Burimeve Njerëzore.

Ju lutem na kontaktoni në adresat e emailit të sipercituara për cdo pyetje apo sqarim të metejshëm.

Ju falenderojme paraprakisht per bashkëpunimin!

PYETËSOR

Vlerësimi i Situatës së Procedurave Stardarte të Veprimit në Bashkitë e Shqipërisë, Dhjetor 2017–Shkurt 2018

Drejtuar

Zëvëndës Kryetarit të Bashkisë, Drejtorit të Drejtorisë Juridike ose Drejtorisë së Menaxhimit të Burimeve Njerëzore.

Sfondi

Ky pyetësor plotësohet në kuadër të Verësimit të Situatës së Procedurave Stardarte të Veprimit në Bashkitë e Shqipërisë, në kuadër të Konsolidimi i Reformës Territoriale dhe Administrative (STAR-2).

Qëllimi

Gjetjet nga analiza e studimit të këtij pyetësori do të mundësojnë STAR-2 të ndihmojë bashkitë e Shqipërisë në zhvillimin, zbatimin dhe rishikimin e Procedurave Standarde të Veprimit (PSV). Hartimi i PSV-ve bazohet në Ligjin 44/2015 "Për Kodin e Procedurave Administrative në Republikën e Shqipërisë" (KPA). Ato ndihmojnë bashkitë të strukturimin e punëve për zbatimin e funksioneve të rëndësishme bashkiake, përmirësimin e produktivitetit dhe menaxhimit të kohës së nëpunësve, promovimin e cilësisë përmes zbatimit të qëndrueshëm të një procesi ose procedure, duke siguruar kështu një shpërndarje efektive dhe efikase të shërbimeve, përmirësimin e komunikimit ndërmjet nëpunësve dhe përfituesve të shërbimeve dhe produkete të bashkisë, integrimin e veprimeve institucionale, lidhjen e punës së menaxherëve dhe planifikuesve me aktivitetet e nëpunësve teknikë, sigurimin e cilësisë, duke avancuar performancën e përgjithshme dhe arritjen e rezultateve të përcaktuara të bashkisë.

Deklarim

29 Kuptimi i ‘Procedurës Standarte të Veprimit’ (PSV)

PSV detajon dhe përshkruan punën e përsëritur rregullisht e që do të kryhet brenda një institucioni. Një PSV lehtëson qëndrueshmërinë në cilësinë dhe integritetin e një produkti ose rezultati përfundimtar. Është një grup udhëzimesh të shkruara që dokumentojnë një aktivitet rutinë ose të përsëritur që ndiqet nga një institucion. Është një grup procedurash që specifikojnë me shkrim: 1, Çfarë duhet të bëhet; 2, Kur; 3, Ku, 4, nga Kush; 5, Si.

Përmbledhje e pyetësorit

Seksioni 1, Ekzistenca e PSV-ve në bashki, ofron informacion mvi PSV-të që ekzistojnë në njësinë e qeverisjes vendore duke iu përgjigjur pyetësorit. Ky seksion mbledh të dhëna mbi numrin e PSV-ve ose dokumenteve të tjera rregullatore në secilën bashki dhe merr informacion nëse ekzistojnë udhëzime, staf dhe skuadra me përgjegjësi të caktuar për zhvillimin e PSV-ve. Seksioni vlerëson nëse bashkia ka kapacitetin për t'i zhvilluar PSV-te. Ky seksion duhet të plotësohet, mundësisht nga nënkryetari i bashkisë.

Seksioni 2, Niveli i ndërgjegjësimit mbi KPA dhe PSV, grumbullon informacion mbi nivelin e ndërgjegjësimit dhe njohurive të KPA dhe PSV në nivel bashkie, drejtorie dhe stafi, nëse kërkesat e KPA pasqyrohen në detyrat dhe procedurat e përditshme, nëse është trajnuar stafi për këto çështje. Seksioni pasqyron numrin e PSV-ve që ekzistojnë për funksionet e ndryshme bashkiake dhe nëse ato përputhen me nenet e KPA.

Ky seksion duhet të plotësohet nga nënkryetari dhe drejtori i drejtorisë, përveç pyetjes 2.5, e cila duhet të plotësohet me të dhëna nga të gjithë drejtorët.

Seksioni 3, Niveli i ndikimit të zbatimit të PSV-së mbi performancën bashkiake, informon nëse politikat dhe proceset bashkiake reflektohen në PSV, dhe nëse PSV-të kanë përmirësuar performancën e bashkisë, drejtoritë e tyre të ndryshme dhe personelin, dhe nëse monitorohet dhe vlerësohet zbatimi i PSV.

Ky seksion duhet të plotësohet nga nënkryetari i bashkise dhe drejtori i Drejtorisë Juridike ose Drejtorisë së Menaxhimit të Burimeve Njerëzore.

Seksioni 4, Niveli i ekspertizës së stafit bashkiak në zbatimin e PSV-së, informon nëse drejtorët bashkiakë dhe stafi janë përfshirë në shkrimin e PSV-së, dhe nëse ata janë trajnuar mbi PSV-të.

Ky seksion duhet të plotësohet nga drejtori i Drejtorisë Juridike ose Drejtorisë së Menaxhimit të Burimeve Njerëzore.

Ju lutemi dërgoni pyetësorët të plotësuara tek: [email protected] dhe [email protected] brenda dates 9 Janar 2018

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 30

Bashkia e ______

Numri i nëpunësve civil, aktual ______

Karakteristikat e nëpunësit që plotëson pyetësorin

1. Zëvëndës Kryetar: Emri ______Mbiemri ______Femër Mashkull

2. Drejtor: Emri ______Mbiemri ______Femër Mashkull

3. Emri i Drejtorisë ______

Seksioni 1. Egzistenca a PSV-ve në Bashki (pyetje për Zëvëndës Kryetarin)

1.1 A ka Bashkia PSV të miratuar? PO JO

1.1.1 Nëse PO, a kanë të gjithë nëpunësit e Bashkisë qasje në PSV-të e miratuara? PO JO

1.1.2 Sa PSV të miratuara ka Bashkia? ______

1.2 Cilat dokumente të tjera rregullatore ka në fuqi Bashkia, që rregullojnë dhe udhëheqin detyrat e nëpunësve dhe punën për ofrimin e shërbimeve dhe produkteve të Bashkisë? Ju lutemi listoni:

1.3 Ju lutem bashkëngjitini këtij pyetsori një (1) PSV apo, në mungesë të saj,

një (1) dokument rregullator që rregullon punët e Bashkisë.

1.4 A ka të miratuar Bashkia udhëzues, format dhe metodologji për hartimin e PO JO PSV-ve të Bashkisë?

1.4.1 Nëse PO, a ka emëruar Bashkia një nëpunës përgjegjës për ndekjen dhe mbikqyrjen e zbatimit të udhëzuesit dhe metodologjisë për hartimin e PSV-ve PO JO të Bashkisë?

1.5 A ka ngritur Bashkia një ekip nëpunësish për të identifikuar dhe dokumentuar proçeset e punës që kanë shumë detyra dhe në të cilat janë përshirë disa drejtori, PO JO për shërbimet dhe produktet e ofruara nga Bashkia?

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 31 1.6 A ka mirë dokumentuar dhe hartëzuar Bashkia proçeset KYÇE të punës dhe PO JO operimit për shërbimet dhe produktes që ajo ofron?

Seksion 2a. Niveli vetëdijes për KPA dhe PSV (pyetje për Zëvëndës Kryetarin)

2.1 A i njohin nëpunësit e Bashkisë kërkesat e KPA që kanë lidhje me punën e tyre të PO JO përditshme?

2.2 A janë pasqyruar kërkesat e KPA në detajimin e detyrave dhe veprimeve PO JO operative të bashkisë suaj për ofrimin e shërbimeve dhe produkteve?

2.3 A janë trajnuar nëpunësit e Bashkisë në lidhje me KAP? PO JO

2.3.1 Nëse PO, sa nëpunës janë trajnuar në tre (3) vitet e fundit? ______

2.3.2 Cila organizatë apo agjenci e ka ofruar trajnimin?

______, ______, ______

2.4 A ka në fuqi një akt ligjor që i kërkon Bashkisë të hartojë PSV-të? PO JO

2.4.1 Nëse PO, Ju lutem specifikoni aktin dhe nenin?

______

Seksion 2b. Niveli i vetëdijes për KPA dhe PSV (pyetje për Drejtorin)

2.1 A i njohin nëpunësit e Bashkisë kërkesat e KPA që kanë lidhje me punën e tyre të PO JO përditshme?

2.2 A janë pasqyruar kërkesat e KPA në detajimin e detyrave dhe veprimeve PO JO operative të drejtorisë suaj për ofrimin e shërbimeve dhe produkteve?

2.3 A janë trajnuar nëpunësit e drejtorisë tuaj në lidhje me KAP? PO JO

2.3.1 Nëse PO, sa nëpunës janë trajnuar në tre (3) vitet e fundit? ______

2.3.2 Cila organizatë apo agjenci e ka ofruar trajnimin?

______, ______, ______

2.4 A ka në fuqi një akt ligjor që i kërkon Bashkisë të hartojë PSV-të? PO JO

2.4.1 Nëse PO, Ju lutem specifikoni aktin dhe nenin?

______

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 32

2.5 Ju lutemi plotësoni skedarin në Excel bashkangjitur. Të plotësohet nga të gjithë drejtorët e drejtorive sipas funksioneve të kryera nga drejtoria e tyre. Imazhi më poshtë është një shembull i marrë nga një bashki që e ka plotësuar. Ju lutemi plotësoni matricën si më poshtë: Për kolonën e emërtuar PSV, vendosni numrin e PSV-ve për funksionin e listuar në të majtë. Numrat në emërtimet e kolonave në të djathtë, korrespondojne me numrat e neneve te Kodit te Procedures Administrative. Shtojca 2 lidh keto numra nenesh me titujt e neneve te kodit. Ju lutemi shënoni (ngjyrosni në ose vendosni 'X') në çdo qelizë nëse SPV për funksionin është në përputhje me nenin përkatës. te KPA.

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 33 Seksion 3a. Niveli i ndikimit të zbatimit të PSV-ve në performancën e Bashkisë (Zëvëndës Kryetar)

3.1 A janë pasqyruar qartë në SPV-të e miratuara, politikat e Bashkisë për shërbimet PO JO dhe produktet?

3.2 A mendoni se PSV-të kanë kontribuar në rritje të performancës së përgjithshme të PO JO Bashkisë në ofrimin e shërbimeve dhe produkteve?

3.2.1 Nëse PO, ju lutem jepni një apo dy shembuj?

______

3.3 A mendoni se PSV-të kanë kontribuar në rritjen e kënaqshmërisë së qytetarëve me PO JO shërbimet dhe produktet e Bashkisë?

3.4 A i ofrojnë PSV-të nëpunësve tuaj një drejtim të qartë dhe detaje të mjaftueshme për PO JO ta bërë punën në mënyrë korrekte duke siguruar kënaqshmërinë e qytetarëve?

Seksion 3b. Niveli i ndikimit të zbatimit të PSV-ve në performancën e Bashkisë (Drejtor)

3.5 A kanë mundësuar PSV-të më shumë efiçencë dhe efikasitet në punën e drejtorisë PO JO suaj në ofrimin e shërbimeve dhe produkteve?

3.6 A kanë përmirësuar PSV-të komunikimin mes nëpunësve të drejtorisë suaj dhe PO JO përfituesve të shërbimeve dhe produkteve?

3.7 A kanë ndihmuar PSV-të në integrimin e veprimeve operative të drejtorisë suaj (duke lidhur punën e menaxherëve dhe të planifikuesve me atë të specialistëve teknikë dhe punonjësve të tjerë).

Shumë Pak Shumë Pak Aspak

3.8 A monitorohet zbatimi i PSV-ve? PO JO

3.9 A ju raportojnë nëpunësit e drejtorise mbi ndryshimet e nevojshme, në momentin që PO JO vërejnë një mundësi, problem, apo shqetësim që i ndikon PSV-së?

3.10 A kanë ndikuar PSV-të në integrimin e veprimeve operative të drejtorisë suaj me ato të drejtorive të tjera të Bashkisë?

Shumë Pak Shumë Pak Aspak

3.11 A kanë përmirësuar PSV-të komunikimin e drejtorisë suaj me drejtoritë e tjera të bashkisë?

Shumë Pak Shumë Pak Aspak

3.12 A kanë kontribuar PSV-të në ruajtjen e cilësisë së shërbimeve dhe produkteve të drejtorisë suaj?

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 34

Shumë Pak Shumë Pak Aspak

3.13 Sa mirë janë zbatuar PSV-të e drejtorisë tuaj?

Shumë Pak Shumë Pak Aspak

3.14 A ka Bashkia një praktikë të vlerësimit të ndikimit të zbatimit të PSV-ve? PO JO

Seksion 4. Niveli i ekspertizës së nëpunësve të bashkisë në zbatimin e PSV-ve (Drejtor)

4.1 A jeni përfshirë në shkrimin e një PSV-je të Bashkisë? PO JO

4.2 A janë përfshirë nëpunësit e drejtorisë suaj në shkrimin e një PSV-je të Bashkisë? PO JO

4.3 A janë trajnuar nëpunësit e drejtorisë suaj në shkrimin dhe rishikimin e PSV-ve? PO JO

4.3.1 Nëse PO, Sa nëpunës janë trajnuar në tre (3) vitet e fundit? ______

4.3.2 Cila organizatë apo agjenci e ka ofruar trajnimin?

______, ______, ______.

4.4 A janë nëpunësit tuaj të aftë për të ndjekur plotësisht dhe zbatuar me efiçencë kërkesat e PSV-ve?

Shumë Pak Shumë Pak Aspak

4.5 A janë trajnuar nëpunësit tuaj për të ndjekur plotësisht dhe zbatuar me efiçencë PO JO kërkesat e PSV-ve?

4.5.1 Nëse PO, Sa nëpunës janë trajnuar në tre (3) vitet e fundit? ______

4.5.2 Cila organizatë apo agjenci e ka ofruar trajnimin?

______, ______, ______.

Faleminderit për Bashkëpunimin!

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 35 Shtojca 1. Numrat dhe titujt e neneve të ligjit

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 36

Shtojca 2. Kodi i Procedurave Administrative i Republikës së Shqipërisë (KPA), Ligj nr. 44/2015

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 37

Annex 2:

Assessment of Situation of SOPs in Albanian Municipalities 38 January 2018

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 09:30-12:00 Team meeting: Tirana Qark, Feedback on the Hotel Premium first round of Golem (pp5x3 b. meetings and 1.Vore, 2. Kamez, tuning of 3. Tirane, 4. agenda if Kavaje, 5. necessary Rrogozhine) 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-15:30 Durres Qark, Hotel Premium Golem (pp 3x3 b.Kruje, Durres, Shijak) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 09:30-12:00 Fier, 09:00-11:30 Vlore 09:00-11:30 09:30-12:00 08:30-11:00 Hotel Fier, ish- (pp7x3 b. 1.Vlorë, Elbasan (pp7x3 Shkoder, Mrizi i Kukes Hotel turizmi (pp6x3 b. 2. Selenicë, b. 1. Elbasan, 2. Zanave?? (pp5x3 America ?? 1.Fier, 2.Patos, 3.Himarë, Cërrik, 3. Belsh, b. 1.Malësi e (pp3x3 b. 3.Roskovec, 4.Sarandë, 4.Peqin, Madhe, 1.Kukës, 2. Has, 4.Lushnjë, 5.Konispol, 5.Gramsh, 2.Shkodër, 3.Vau 3. Tropojë) 5.Divjakë, 6.Finiq, 7.Delvinë) 6.Librazhd, –Dejës, 4.Pukë, 12:00-13:00 6.Mallakastër) 12:00-13:00 7.Prrenjas) 5.Fushë-Arrëz) Lunch 12:00-13:00 Lunch 12:00-13:00 12:00-13:00 13:30-16:00 Diber Lunch 13:30-16:00 Lunch Lunch , Hotel Veri (pp 14:00-16:00 Gjirokaster (pp 13:30-16:00 13:00-15:30 4x3 1.Dibër, 2. Berat, Bashkia 7x3 b. 1. Korca, Hotel Lezha, Mrizi i Bulqizë, 3.Mat, Berat?? (pp 5x3 Gjirokastër, Milenium Zanave?? (pp 4.Klos b. 1.Berat, 2. Ura 2.Libohovë, Tushemish 3x3 b. 1.Lezha, 2. Vajgurore, 3. 3.Tepelenë, (pp6x3 b. Mirditë, 3.Kurbin) Kuçovë , 4. 4.Memaliaj, 1.Korçë, 2. Maliq, Skrapar, 5.Përmet, 3. Pustec, 5.Poliçan) 6.Këlcyrë, 4.Kolonjë, 7.Dropull 5.Devoll, 6.Pogradec

Rendi i dites

Uorkshope rajonale për Vlerësimin e Situatës së Procedurave Stardarte të Veprimit në Bashkitë e Shqipërisë

Vendi: per tu konfirmuar XX:XX–XX:XX, data per tu konfirmuar Januar 2018

Objektivat e takimit rajonal 1. prezantimi i PSV së përzgjedhur nga inventarizimi i praktikave në të gjitha bashkitë e vendit 2. diskutim e qartësim mbi përvojën e pasqyruar në pyetësorin e plotësuar nga secila bashki pjesëmarrëse 3. diskutim mbi gjetjet kryesore të procesit të hartëzimit të PSV

10’ Regjistrimi i pjesëmarrësve zv.Kryetari i Bashkisë, Drejtori i Drejtorisë Juridike dhe Drejtori i Drejtorisë së Burimeve Njerëzore (nga secila bashki e qarkut) Përfaqësues nga bashkia e Tiranës, Skuadra e FLAG Perfaqesues te STAR2

30’ Praktikë e përzgjedhur e PSV Prezantim nga përfaqësues i Bashkisë Tiranë

1hr 30’ Diskutim mbi përvojën e pasqyruar në pyetësorin e plotësuar nga secila bashki pjesëmarrëse; Gjetjet kryesore të procesit të hartëzimit të PSV Prezantim nga skuadra e FLAG

Lunch