National Assessment of Georgian Municipalities

საქართველოს მუნიციპალიტეტების ერთიანი ეროვნული შეფასება National Assessment of Georgian Municipalities

www.lsgindex.org 100%

RESULTS FOR 2017 PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY 92% % % 14 14 municipal bodies Property Public Procurement 11 ignored our freedom of information request 12% Rustavi 7 9 Terjola 16% Public Information Meeting Telavi Tsalka Protocols 8 9 Ozurgeti Tkibuli 9 8

Chkhorotsku Ninotsminda 7 8 % 24% Zugdidi Aspindza 11 Municipal Staffing 7 Services Policy Follow petition procedures 63%

8% 28% Legal Budget 4 Entities 5 Participation of citizens 50% 69 in municipal council sessions 67 is only a formality 2% 34% 3 2 Administrative Legal Acts and Expenses Court Decisions 44% 68 1 General Information 71 36% 70 ELECTRONIC GOVERNANCE

Use of Support for the 61% Social Networks council of advisors is minimal 12% Information Mayors MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AVERAGE SCORE CITY HALL / MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION about Forms of Participation rarely submit 14% 9 initiatives 34% to general Technical assemblies 11% Characteristics Electronic of the Municipal 5% Marneuli and Gori alone include citizen Participation Website 3% participation programs in their municipal budgets 100%

AVERAGE CITY HALLS / MUNICIPALRESULTS MUNICIPALFOR 2017 PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY N MUNICIPALITIES RESULTS ADMINISTRATIONS COUNCILS 92% 7 % % 14 14 municipal bodies 8 Property Public Procurement 11 ignored our freedom 9 of information request Rustavi Terjola 12% 7 9 16% Public Information Meeting Telavi Tsalka Protocols 8 9 Ozurgeti Tkibuli 9 8 Chkhorotsku Ninotsminda 7 8 % 24% Zugdidi Aspindza 11 Municipal Staffing 7 Services Policy 7 Follow petition procedures 8 3 63% 9 3 8% 28% Legal Budget 4 Entities 5 Participation of citizens 50% 69 3 in municipal council sessions 67 3 is only a formality 2% % 3 3 3 34 3 2 Administrative Legal Acts and Expenses Court Decisions 7 3 44% 8 3 68 1 General Information 71 9 3 36% 70 ELECTRONIC GOVERNANCE 3 Use of Support for the 61% Social Networks council of advisors is minimal 3 12% Information Mayors MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AVERAGE SCORE CITY HALL / MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION about Forms 7 3 of Participation rarely submit 8 14% 9 initiatives 9 % to general 34 7 Technical assemblies 7 3 11% Characteristics Electronic of the Municipal 5% Marneuli and Gori alone include citizen Participation Website 3% participation programs in their municipal budgets 100%

RESULTS FOR 2017 PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

92% % % 14 14 municipal bodies Property Public Procurement 11 ignored our freedom of information request 12% Rustavi 7 9 Terjola 16% Public Information Meeting Telavi Tsalka Protocols 8 9 Ozurgeti Tkibuli 9 8

Chkhorotsku Ninotsminda 7 8 % 24% Zugdidi Aspindza 11 Municipal Staffing 7 Services Policy Follow petition procedures 63%

LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INDEX: Key Findings and Recommendations

The Local Self-Government Index was de- The complete report can be found at: veloped by the Center for Consultation and www.lsgindex.org Training (CTC), Institute for Development The Index was developed with the support of of Freedom of Information (IDFI) and the Open Society Georgia Foundation. Opinions ex- Management Systems Development Center pressed in this report may not reflect those of (MSDC). the foundation.

Authors:

Giorgi Toklikishvili Koka Kighuradze Goga Tushurashvili Teona Turashvili Tamar Naskidashvili Vakhtang Natsvlishvili

© Local Self-Government Index: Key Findings and Recommendations, 2017. All rights reserved. The report may be reprinted with the consent of the authors. EVALUATION OF THE 2017 LOCAL SELF- GOVERNMENT INDEX WAS CONDUCTED BY:

Nino Khukhua Local Democracy Agency Georgia (LDA) Davit Salaridze Local Democracy Agency Georgia (LDA) Maka Tsertsvadze Local Democracy Agency Georgia (LDA) Marika Nanitashvili Association DEA Bakur Gogokhia Association DEA Giorgi Andghuladze Union of Democratic Meskhs (UDM) Jaba Natenadze Union of Democratic Meskhs (UDM) Levan Gegeshidze Public Union Bridge of Friendship Kartlosi Arina Tavakarishvili Public Union Bridge of Friendship Kartlosi Giorgi Abuladze Green Caucasus Zura Akhmeteli Green Caucasus Beburi Belashvili Regional Development Center (RDC) Giorgi Mosidze Regional Development Center (RDC) Natia Apkhazava Civil Society Institute - Batumi (CSI) Nino Chkhaidze Civil Society Institute - Batumi (CSI) Iago Pasandze Saunje Mari Shonia Saunje Maia Bidzinashvili Community Organization Nukriani Makvala Jokhadze Community Organization Nukriani Levan Khintibidze Democratic Development Union of Georgia Irakli Papava Democratic Development Union of Georgia Nana Saneblidze Management Systems Development Center (MSDC) Ana Gagua Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI)

24 INTRODUCTION Also important was the inclusion of a separate chapter on the mechanisms of Strengthening local self-government and self-governance, which introduced new decentralization in Georgia is one of the mechanisms (general assembly of a settle- most important parts of public adminis- ment, council of civil advisors) and further tration reform. The Public Administration refined existing ones (petition, participa- Reform Roadmap 2020 contains a separate tion in meetings of representative bodies, chapter on local self-government. Accord- hearings of public official and municipal ing to the document, the goal of the reform council member reports). is to improve the decentralization process Despite the general legal framework, the and achieve better governance at the local mentioned forms of participation were in- level.1 troduced in municipalities incoherently. The latest wave of reform took place in There are several reasons for this, includ- 2014 and involved the adoption of a new ing lack of technical-material capabilities, Local Self-Government Code. The code in- experience and political will of municipal- troduced direct election of mayors and gov- ities. Awareness, willingness and skills of ernors,2 clear separation of duties between the local population to engage in political the central and local authorities, as well processes and contribute to solving local as executive and representative organs on problems are equally important. According municipal level, creation of guarantees for to recent polls, only 7% of the population is the increase of financial independence of aware of the activities of their municipali- local authorities and establishing solid fi- t y. 3 Also, the number of people who have nancial and legal grounds for continuous information about newly introduced partic- training of municipal officials. ipation mechanisms is insignificant.4

1 Administration of the Government of Georgia, Public Administration Reform Roadmap 2020, 2015, http://bit.ly/2no21en

2 Note: The terms relevant for the monitoring period (as of July, 2017) are used in this report. As it is known, after the 2017 local elections the term Municipal Administration is not used. Since then, all local executive bodies are headed by Mayors.

3 Caucasus Research Resource Center, Public Policy Research, 2015, http://bit.ly/2kg07eJ 4 Ibid. 25 In response to these challenges, the Local Self-Government Index was created with the joint efforts of the Center for Training and Consultancy (CTC), Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) and the Management Systems Development Center (MSDC). It aims to establish transparent and accountable self-governance in Georgia, increase public participation in self-governance and reduce corruption risks. The project was imple- mented with financial support of Open Society Georgia Foundation.

METHODOLOGY

The Local Self-Government Index consists of 3 thematic blocks, which combine 100 evaluation criteria.

Block 1. Proactive Disclosure of Public Information - includes 11 sub-blocks and 52 criteria.

Block 2. Electronic Governance - includes 4 sub-blocks and 29 criteria.

Block 3. Citizen Participation and Accountability - includes 2 sub-blocks and 19 criteria.

Proactive disclosure of public information by municipalities (block 1) and e-governance (block 2) were evaluated based mainly on the monitoring of their official websites. Citizen participation and accountability (block 3) was evaluated by analyzing public information requested from municipalities and observing the practice of citizen participation on the ground. Municipalities that failed to provide the requested information were given the minimum evaluation for the relevant criteria.

In addition, the following means were used to obtain and verify information:

 Telephone communication with a municipal body.

 Studying documents published through the Legislative Herald.

 Use of other official (online) sources that contain relevant information.

26 The Local Self-Government Index evaluates The evaluation was made using the online executive as well as representative munic- platform - WWW.LSGINDEX.ORG. ipal bodies. Following the initial evaluation, represent- The evaluation of the transparency and atives of municipal bodies were given the accountability of municipal bodies in Geor- opportunity to view their preliminary re- gia was carried out from May 15 to July 15, sults (after registering on the platform) and 2017. All Georgian municipalities, except leave comments. The project team took for Azhara, Akhalgori, Eredvi, Tighvi and into consideration all substantiated com- Kurta, were evaluated. The evaluation was ments in the final evaluation report. carried out with the involvement of 21 rep- resentatives of 10 regional civil society or- ganizations.

2017 EVALUATION OF THE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF MUNICIPALITIES - KEY FINDINGS

The overall results of the 2017 evaluation 1. Proactive Disclosure of Public of Georgian municipalities were low. On the Information scale of 0 to 100%, the average result of ▪▪ Georgian municipalities often fail to all municipalities was only 21% (19% for meet the minimum standards of pro- city halls / municipal administrations and active disclosure of public information 24% for municipal councils). This means that they themselves have deter- that important steps need to be taken by mined. Georgian municipalities in order to estab- ▪▪ The highest result for proactive disclo- lish high standards in transparency and sure of information is only 47% (Ozur- accountability. geti Municipality). 60% of municipali- The following key findings were identified ties fail to reach even 20% in proactive as a result of the evaluation: disclosure.

27 ▪▪ In most cases, information proactive- The practice of using electronic forms ly published by municipalities on their of participation is limited. Apart from a websites is not organized thematically, few exceptions, municipal services are making it difficult to navigate. not available online.

▪▪ Neither executive nor representative ▪▪ The quality of technical characteristics municipal bodies proactively publish of municipal websites is below aver- information about their administrative age (32%). Municipalities did relatively expenses. This information can often better with social network integration only be found in budget execution re- (63%), use of the official state agency ports, which does not satisfy the prin- domain (www.[municipality].gov.ge) ciple of proactive disclosure. (60%) and development of mobile ver- sions for their websites (55%). Howev- ▪▪ The amount of information published er, in most municipalities, public serv- about legal entities of public / private ants do not use e-mail addresses with law owned or managed by municipali- ending with the official state domain. ties is very low. ▪▪ Local self-government bodies use so- ▪▪ No municipality provides citizens with cial networks more actively than web- detailed information about all existing sites. Apart from Tsageri, Akhalkalaki municipal services proactively. and Tsalka municipalities, all local self-government bodies have their own ▪▪ Municipalities publish most informa- official Facebook page. However, the tion in the general category, such as quality of responses to citizen messag- contact information (59%), information es is relatively low (55%). about public officials (54%), organiza- tional structure and functions (50%). 3. Citizen Participation and Accountability 2. Electronic Governance ▪▪ Absolute majority of municipalities do ▪▪ Most local self-governing bodies do not not include citizen participation in the use their websites to provide informa- budget planning process. tion to the population about the forms of participation made available by law. ▪▪ Municipal rules of procedure and material-technical base do not provide 28 opportunities for efficient citizen par- this regard is also weak and is limit- ticipation in the meetings of Municipal ed only to formal meetings that do not Councils and their Commissions. serve as substitutes for public meetings and hearings. ▪▪ In most cases, the Council of Civil Advi- sors of a Governor / Mayor is a formali- ▪▪ Innovative and additional citizen par- ty. Although the creation of the council ticipation practices are weak. is mandatory according to Georgian ▪▪ Publishing public information in mu- law, in some municipalities they have nicipalities is an unorganized process, not yet been created. In cases where which negatively reflects on the timing such councils exist, for the most part, and quality of published or proactively Governors / Mayors do not submit the published information. legally required documents to them ▪▪ Municipalities do not use all of the and neither does the council itself available means of communication to present initiatives. The councils also inform the population about the imple- lack material-technical and informa- mented programs and projects. tion support. There are several important trends in terms ▪▪ Municipality Governors / Mayors sel- of transparency and accountability of exec- dom call general assemblies voluntar- utive and representative bodies of Geor- ily and discuss issues with them that gian municipalities. are obligatory by law.

▪▪ Citizens have the opportunity to freely EXECUTIVE BODIES – submit their petitions, in some munic- City Hall/Municipal Administration ipalities even electronically. However, the issue of publicity of deliberations ▪▪ In the past two years, of the 71 mu- on these petitions still remains a prob- nicipal administrations / city halls only lem. 8 published (incomplete) information about the administrative expenses of ▪▪ Municipalities have not adopted legal the municipality. Only 5 of them pub- acts on holding public discussions or lished information about labor remu- public hearings of reports. Practice in neration and fuel expenses.

29 ▪▪ Information about annual reports, pub- public meeting of the council of civil lic procurements, audits and employ- advisors. ees of legal entities were published in ▪▪ More than 50% of executive bodies do only a few cases. not take measures to increase public ▪▪ More than 40% of executive bodies do awareness. not publish any information on ongoing tenders on their website. REPRESENTATIVE BODIES – Municipal Council ▪▪ More than 50% of executive bodies do not publish annual reports, strate- ▪▪ Only 7 out of 71 municipal councils gic documents and contact details of reported (incompletely) information persons responsible for issuing public about municipal administrative ex- 3 information. penses during last two years. Out of these, only 3 published information on ▪▪ Very few executive bodies use modern remuneration, fuel and working visit technologies to provide municipal ser- expenses. vices: from 71 municipalities, only 2 issue online permits, only 1 offers SMS ▪▪ More than 70% of municipal coun- alerts and 6 do online surveys. cils do not inform citizens about their scheduled sessions in advance, and ▪▪ Absolute majority of executive bod- the majority of the remaining 30% do ies do not provide information to the 3 3 it inadequately. population (in easy to understand lan- 3 guage) about the forms of citizen par- ▪▪ 70% of councils do not publish session ticipation in local self-governance. protocols, and more than half of the remaining 30% do so only partially. ▪▪ Only two municipalities (Marneuli and Gori) had included citizen participation ▪▪ The online petition system has not programs in their budget. been introduced in more than 70% of councils. ▪▪ In the last year, more than 85% of municipalities have not held a single gen- ▪▪ Only 6 municipal councils ensure live eral assembly of a settlement; more broadcasting of sessions with relative 3 than 60% have not held a session or stability.

30 ▪▪ In most municipalities only minimal ▪▪ More than 60% of municipalities do not and formal guarantees are made for practice the hearing of performance citizen participation in both council reports of municipal council members. and, in particular, commission meetings.

RESULTS OF THE 2017 LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INDEX

Municipalities with the highest results Municipalities with the lowest results

Rustavi Telavi Ozurgeti Chkhorotsku Zugdidi Terjola Tsalka Tkibuli Ninotsminda Aspindza (City)

City Halls / Municipal Administrations Municipal Councils with the highest and with the highest and lowest result lowest result 3 3 3

Telavi Telavi Zugdidi Lagodekhi Ozurgeti Lagodekhi Rustavi (City)Chkhorotsku Rustavi (City) Chkhorotsku

Oni Kareli Terjola Tsalka Tkibuli Samtredia Lentekhi Aspindza AkhalkalakiNinotsminda Ninotsminda Mtskheta (City) 31 Average results of municipalities by thematic category

Proactive Disclosure of Public Information Electronic Governance

Participation and Accountability

Results of municipalities in proactive disclosure of public information

Administrative Expenses

Legal Entities

Staffing Policy

Public Information

Property

Public Procurement

Meeting Protocols

Municipal Services

Budget

Legal Acts and Court Decisions 3

General Information

Results of municipalities in electronic governance

Electronic Participation Information about Forms of Participation

Technical Characteristics 3 of the Municipal Website Use of Social Networks

Results of municipalities in citizen participation and accountability

Citizen Participation

Accountability 3 32 RECOMMENDATIONS ▪▪ Municipalities should not limit themselves to the official list of proactive- To address the problems and challenges ly published information, and should identified as a result of this evaluation, im- strive to disclose all public information portant steps must be taken towards rais- that is of interest to the public. This ing the standards of transparency citizen will reduce the frequency of freedom participation in political processes. We be- of information requests and increase lieve that the following recommendations the overall level of transparency. will significantly improve openness and ac- 2. Electronic Governance countability at the local government level in Georgia. ▪▪ In order to increase citizen participation in political processes, they must 1. Proactive Disclosure of Public be provided timely information about Information the forms of participation. Therefore, ▪▪ Municipalities must update their list of municipalities must employ their web- information to be disclosed proactive- sites, social networks and mobile ap- ly based on the standards of the Local plications as primary means for shar- Self-Government Index and best prac- ing information with the public in an tices of good governance and trans- effective and timely manner.

parency of public institutions. ▪▪ In order to ensure information securi- ▪▪ Each municipality must create a public ty, municipalities must start using the information section on their website, state domain (gov.ge) and public offi- where thematic public information will cials must start using the official email be posted. for work purposes.

▪▪ Municipalities must use their website ▪▪ Municipalities must introduce online to publish information about municipal services and inform the public about services, ongoing tenders, auctions them. This will reduce financial and and other issues of high public inter- time-related expenses and increase est. the level of citizen satisfaction.

33 3. Citizen Participation and ▪▪ The degree of accountability of elected Accountability mayors and municipal council members to voters must be increased. This ▪▪ Municipalities must develop budgetary means that public discussions and programs that support citizen partici- hearings of their reports must be held pation in local self-governance. with the frequency that is set by law. ▪▪ Municipal councils must better inform ▪▪ Municipalities must introduce a quick the public about their sessions (includ- and effective procedure for issuing ing commission sessions). This will in- public information. This will demon- crease the transparency of municipal strate their willingness to become councils and participation of public more transparent and improve com- groups. munication with citizens, media, busi- ▪▪ Municipalities must take greater effort ness and civil society. to strengthen the practice of using ▪▪ Municipalities must use the news chan- general assemblies of a settlement nels that are most frequently used by and civil advisor councils as legal the local population to consistently mechanisms of citizen participation. inform them about existing challeng- These mechanisms must gradually be- es, alternatives, achievements, and come the main methods for involving planned and ongoing projects. citizens in the local decision-making process.

34 AVERAGE CITY HALLS / MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL N MUNICIPALITIES RESULTS ADMINISTRATIONS COUNCILS

3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 8 3 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 8 3 9 33 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 8 3 9 3 3

35 AVERAGE CITY HALLS / MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL N MUNICIPALITIES RESULTS ADMINISTRATIONS COUNCILS

7 8 9 7 8 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 8 3 9 3 3 3 7 3 8 9 7 7 3