%2'0$3*' ' &4$50'%2' '...

This Project is financed by the European Union and co-financed by the Ministry of Public Administration of Montenegro.

REFORMA JAVNIH FINANSIJA I

PORESKA TAJNA:KROZ PRIZMU

OPŠTINSKOG DUGA

GDJE IDEMOJ NOVAC

Ministarstvo javne uprave

MY TOWN ABOUT MY MONEYREPORT ON THE OPENNESS OF LOCAL BUDGETS

2

Publication: My Town About My Money(Report on the Openness of Local Budgets)

Publisher: Institute Alternative

57, George Washington Boulevard Podgorica, Montenegro

Tel/Fax: (+382) 20 268 686

E-mail: [email protected]

For the publisher: Stevo Muk

Editor: Milena Muk

Researcher: Naziv Velić

Research assistants: Nikoleta Pavićević and Almedina Dodić

Design and prepress: Ana Jovović

Podgorica, February 2019.

This Report was prepared within the project “Money Watch: Civil Society Guarding the Budget”, implemented by the Institute Alternative in cooperation with the Institute of Public Finance and NGO New Horizon, supported by the European Union and co-financed by the Ministry of Public Administration. The contents of this Report are the exclusive responsibility of the authors and in no way reflect the opinion of the European Union or the Ministry of Public Administration.

Ministarstvo javne uprave

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Overview of transparency results, by municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Andrijevica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Berane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Bijelo Polje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Budva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Cetinje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Danilovgrad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Herceg Novi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Gusinje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Kolasin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Kotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Mojkovac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Niksic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Petnjica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Plav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Pluzine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Pljevlja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Capital City of Podgorica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Rozaje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Tivat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Ulcinj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Savnik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Zabljak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4

From transparency to openness: Public consultations on local budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

What next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Local self-governments’ web presentations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5

INTRODUCTION

Providing reports to the public and making budget documents available to citizens - these are the prerequisites for more open local self-governments and more accountable public finance. However, these issues do not receive sufficient attention in Montenegro, in particular at the local level. The discussion concerning good local governance tends to be limited to the needs to rationalise public spending and optimise staff numbers, with official requirements posed to Montenegrin municipalities often disregarding the issue of public finance transparency. For this reason, this Report focuses on the key issues of local finance transparency, through an assessment of compliance with the minimum standards related to publication of core budget documents.

Article 12 of the Law on Free Access to Information lays down a proactive approach to information and requires the authorities to publish some categories of information.1 These requirements apply only marginally to public finance information, except for stating the obligation to publish all draft laws, Government-approved proposals for laws, individual documents and contracts on the management of public revenue funds

and state property. The application of the arrangement under the new Law on Local Self-Government Finance represents potential progress in this regard. In line with the Institute Alternative (IA) recommendations, the Law lays down the obligation of the municipalities to post their budget decisions, decisions amending the budget, decisions on the final budget account and quarterly reports on total revenues, expenditures, outstanding liabilities and budget debt on their webpages.2 Taking note of the IA suggestion,3 the 2018–2020 National Action Plan for Implementation of the Open Government Partnership Initiative in Montenegro includes a measure concerning the development of “Citizens’ Budget”, requiring local self-governments to prepare them based on the template to be provided by the Union of Montenegrin Municipalities. According to the Action Plan, these brochures should be used in the course of public discussions on local budgets for 2020 and should also be posted on

1 / 1) Access to Information Guide; 2) public registries and public records; 3) work programmes and plans; 4) reports and other documents on the performance and status in their respective areas of competence; 5) drafts, proposals and final versions of strategic documents; 6) drafts, proposals for laws and other regulations, and expert opinions on such regulations; 7) individual documents and contracts on management of public revenue funds and state property 8) list of civil servants and state employees, with their titles; 9) list of public officials and calculations of their wages and other income and benefits stemming from public office; 10) decisions and other individual documents of relevance for the rights, responsibilities and interests of third parties; 11) information to which access has been granted following an application to that effect

2 / Law on Local Self-Government Finance (Official Gazette of Montenegro 003/19 of 15 Jan 2019).

3 / https://bit.ly/2Wui9bG

6

the municipalities’ webpages. The same Action Plan envisages standardisation of municipal web portals based on the standardised guidelines for designing such portals, as well as monitoring of the implementation of such guidelines.4

This research gains importance in the context of the commenced implementation of the new legal provisions and strategic measures, as it serves as a baseline assessment of local public finance transparency. Aiming to present the current situation and highlight the importance of proactive publication of information concerning local budgets, the IA - together with the NGO New Horizon from Ulcinj and with expert assistance provided by the Public Finance Institute from Zagreb - conducted a comparative survey and analysis of the webpages of the 23 local self-government units in Montenegro. In order to ensure quality control of the online data collection process, the website search according to pre-set criteria was organised in two rounds, with preliminary results compiled in September 2018 and verified in December 2018. The Draft Report was shared with all of the participating local self-governments in early February 2019. Six of them provided feedback (Bijelo Polje, Bar, Ulcinj, Rozaje, Kotor and Podgorica), which also contributed to quality control and verification of the data included in the Report.

The research aimed to identify to what extent citizens were able to access the following documents by navigating the municipal web presentations: Draft Budget Decisions for 2018; Budget Decisions for 2018; Decisions on the Final Budget Account for 2017; Biannual Budget Execution Reports for 2017 and Citizens' Budget Guides. For the purpose of the survey, the Citizens' Budget Guide implied presentation of budget documents in a user-friendly form and a simple format, fit to facilitate comprehension and discussion by the citizens. These did not include introductions, summaries or

explanatory notes accompanying the budget documents; instead, these were completely new, simpler and more accessible texts. The key budget documents to be presented to citizens included the following: budget guidelines: proposed budget; adopted budget (in the voting procedure); budget revisions; monthly, biannual and annual reports on budget execution. During the survey, the focus was on the presentation of draft and adopted budget decisions in the format of citizens' guides, as the minimum requirement in this regard. It was also assessed whether the documents had been published in a machine-readable format, i.e. one that enabled easy identification and downloading of budget data.

4 2018-2020 National Action Plan for Implementation of the Open Government Partnership Initiative in Montenegro, available at: https://bit.ly/2GyCHHkc.

7

The documents stated above were selected as the main indicators of budget transparency. The researchers carried out their searches in the course of a thorough survey of municipal presentations, trying to access the sections on budgets, searching the News, Decisions and Contracts headings, minutes from Local Council meetings, notice boards, and using advanced Google search.

This Report includes a detailed presentation of the results of the survey, by municipality. Since transparency is not a goal per se, but represents the initial and essential step towards more efficient citizen participation in local budget decision-making, the Report includes a separate section on citizen participation in the public discussions on the 2018 local budgets. The foundation for this segment of our survey was the analysis of reports from public discussions. Finally, given the auspicious timing of the implementation of the new strategic and legal measures, the Report points to possible ways of improving the current practices and webpages.

OVERVIEW OF TRANSPARENCY RESULTS, BY MUNICIPALITY

• ANDRIJEVICA

The municipal webpage (http://opstinaandrijevica.me) provided access to three of the five relevant budget documents: Draft Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018; Decision on the Budget for 2018, and Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017. Although the web presentation included a separate Budget section accessible via the Open Town section, the complete set of budget documents could not be found there, only the Budget Decision for 2018 and the Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017. The documents were relatively easy to find, as it took only two clicks. The documents in this section were organised by year, which facilitated the review.

The distinguishing feature for this local self-government was lack of documents that provided consolidated information (Draft Budget Decision). Instead, there were two documents, namely the 2018 Draft Expenditure Plan and the 2018 Draft Revenue Plan. These documents, along with the call to public consultations, came up as results of homepage search. Although the Budget Decision was available in a machine-readable format, that was not the case with the Draft Decision (which was in PDF) or with the key classifications presented in the final budget account (in PDF).

The Biannual 2017 Budget Execution Report or the Citizens' Guide were not available on the Municipality's web presentation.

8

Overview of search items, Andrijevica Municipality webpage:

Draft Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018 ✔(adopted) Decision on the 2018 Budget ✔(adopted) Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 ✔Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 ✖Budget Guide (Citizens’ Budget) for 2018 ✖

• BAR

As in the case of Andrijevica Municipality, citizens running a search of the official webpage of Bar Municipality (https://bar.me) could access three out of the five budget documents. The homepage had a submenu titled Budget which led to the 2018 Budget Decision and the rest of the budget decisions dating back to 2010. Besides the decisions, this section included graphs showing the respective shares of the capital and current budgets for each year, with the former highlighted in green and the latter in blue. The Final Budget Account could be accessed via Local Council/ Meetings, as part of the set of materials for the 3rd meeting of the Bar Municipality Local Council. Draft Budget Decision for 2018 was not easy to locate by searching the sections, but required running an advanced Google search. The three published budget documents were located under different sections, rather than consolidated and made available under Budget. They were not machine-readable, as they were available only in PDF.

Bar Municipality did not post Biannual Budget Execution Reports or Citizens' Budget Guide on its official web presentation.

Overview of search items, Bar Municipality webpage:

Draft Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018 ✔(adopted) Decision on the 2018 Budget Decision ✔(adopted) Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 ✔Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 ✖Budget Guide (Citizens’ Budget) for 2018 ✖

• BERANE

The official web presentation of Berane Municipality (http://berane.me/) did not include a Budget section that should lead to budget documents. The adopted Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018 was accessible upon searching the section titled Decisions and Documents, under the subsections Local Council and 2018 Budget. A keyword search of the website provided as results notices on public discussions on the budgets for 2019, 2017 and

9

2016, but not for 2018. Draft Budget Decision for 2018, as well as the Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 came up as results of advanced Google search; this illustrated that, although present, these were not readily accessible to citizens who might not have enough time or resources to run detailed searches in order to find information about the principal cash flows of their municipality. The Budget Decision and the Final Budget Account were both available in machine-readable format (Word), while the Draft Budget Decision, which was the most important document for citizen participation, was available only in PDF.

The official webpage of the Municipality did not include the Biannual Budget Execution Report or the Citizens' Budget Guide.

Overview of search items, Berane Municipality webpage:


• BIJELO POLJE

The official web presentation of Bijelo Polje Municipality (https://www.bijelopolje.co.me/) included a Budget submenu with budget decisions organised by year (concluding with 2011). The Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018 was also found in this area. Draft Decision had been published on the web presentation, but was not equally accessible as the adopted version. Accessing it required navigating, starting from the homepage, the sections titled Citizens, Notices, Notice Board, Public Discussions and then identifying the link among the notices titled Public Discussions on the Draft Municipal Budget Decision for 2018 and the PDF document attached to the call to the public discussions.

The Decision on the Final Budget Account of Bijelo Polje Municipality for 2017 was not available at the time when we ran the search, because the Local Council section was not active and it was not possible to access the material from the Local Council meetings. In the comments to the draft version of this Report, the Municipality shared that the Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 had been posted on 27 December 2018.5 The Biannual Report on Budget Execution for 2017 was also posted under the Budget section. All of the posted documents were available only in PDF.

The search confirmed that Bijelo Polje Municipality had not posted a Citizens' Budget Guide related to either the draft or the adopted version of the 2018 budget, although, in its

5 / http://so.bijelopolje.co.me/index.php/sjednice/usvojene-odluke/133-usvojene-odluke-sa-iii-sjednice

10

feedback to draft Report, it stated that this document was ready for 2019. Thus, four out of five documents were published.

Overview of search items, Bijelo Polje Municipality webpage:

Draft Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018 ✔(adopted) Decision on the 2018 Budget Decision ✔(adopted) Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 ✔Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 ✔Budget Guide (Citizens’ Budget) for 2018 ✖

• BUDVA

The official presentation of Budva Municipality (http://budva.me/) contained three out of five relevant budget documents. The Citizens Budget submenu was visible in the bottom part of the homepage; it included budget decisions, but only up to 2016. The Budget Decision of Budva Municipality for 2018 could only be found within the set of material from the Local Council meeting, by searching the material from all the meetings, which made it less accessible than the earlier decisions, which were published under a separate section.

The website segment titled Public Consultations included published invitations to the public consultations on the Draft Budget of the Municipality as well as an attachment titled Draft Decisions on the Budgets for 2019 and 2017, but not for 2018. In order to access the Draft Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018, it was necessary to click from the homepage on Show All News and then search the pages (10 news items shown per page). At the time of the search, the Draft Budget for 2018 was on page 22. Both published documents were available in PDF and were thus not machine-readable.

The Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 could not be located on the Municipality's website. When we consulted the Local Council notice of 26 June 2018, we saw that the Proposal for the Decision on the Final Budget Account of Budva Municipality for 2017 had been on the agenda on 3 July 2018, although it was not available to citizens.

Budva Municipality did not publish Biannual Budget Execution Reports and did not consistently publish the Citizens' Budget Guide. This local self-government had the Budget Guide for 2014 published, accessible via the homepage Budget Guide submenu. However, the practice of publishing the guide did not continue in the subsequent years.

11

Overview of search items, Budva Municipality webpage:

Draft Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018 ✔(adopted) Decision on the 2018 Budget Decision ✔(adopted) Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 ✖Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 ✖Budget Guide (Citizens’ Budget) for 2018 ✖

• CETINJE

The official web presentation of the Old Royal Capital of Cetinje (http://www.cetinje.me/) did not enable citizens to access budget documents from a single place. The section titled Documents led to the subsection titled Budget, which included the Public Discussions Agenda and Draft Budget Decision for 2018.

Although the budget decisions for the previous years were published either under the Budget subsection or under the Decisions and Contracts subsection, the 2018 Budget Decision was not there. The Budget Decision of the Old Royal Capital for 2018 was available as part of the material considered at the Local Council meetings (Local Council/Documents). Since that section included more than 200 decisions for 2018 only, that hampered the search.

The Decision on the Final Budget Account of the Old Royal Capital for 2017 was available under the Decision and Contract subsection, which could be accessed by clicking on the Document section on the homepage, then going to Documents and Contracts and finally to 2018 Decisions and Contracts. This subsection included also a number of documents which were not categorised in any way, which hampered the search – at the time when the subsection was accessed, the concerned document was 42nd on the list. All of the three published documents were available only in PDF and were thus not machine-readable.

The Citizens Budget Guide and the Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 for the Old Royal Capital of Cetinje were not available on the official web presentation.

Overview of search items, the Old Royal Capital of Cetinje webpage:


12

• DANILOVGRAD

The homepage of the official webpage of Danilovgrad Municipality (http://danilovgrad.me/) did not include a special section that would include budget documents. The adopted Budget Decision for 2018 was available under the homepage section titled Important Documents. That section included also the document titled “Budžet bez muke” (Budget Made Easy), with a table showing the economic classification of the municipal budget for 2011; its contents did not match those of a Citizens Budget Guide. The document that we searched for, namely the 2018 Budget Guide, was not available on the municipal webpage.

Draft 2018 Budget Decision of Danilovgrad Municipality was included under the section 2017 News, together with a variety of news items, which hampered the search. Similarly, the Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 was available under 2018 News, as part of the material considered at the Local Council meeting, and was equally unavailable as the previously mentioned document. At the time when we ran the search, notice on the decisions approved at the 25th Local Council meeting (including the Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017) was 100th item on the list of news for 2018. All of the three published documents were available in PDF and were thus not machine-readable.

It was not possible to find the Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 on the municipal web presentation.

Overview of search items, Danilovgrad Municipality webpage:


• HERCEG NOVI

The homepage of the official web presentation of Herceg Novi Municipality (http://www.hercegnovi.me) included a section titled Relevant and a subsection titled Municipal Budget. It took one click to reach the document titled Decision on the Budget of the Municipality of Herceg Novi for 2018; however, this part of the website did not include other budget documents covered by our survey. At the time of our search, in order to access the Draft Budget Decision for 2018, it was necessary to navigate 28 pages of the News subsection.

13

The Decision on the Final Budget Account of Herceg Novi Municipality was reachable in three steps (clicks) from the homepage, by searching the Local Council decisions. All of the three published documents were available only in PDF and thus were not machine-readable.

The three available budget documents were located under three different sections of the official web presentation of Herceg Novi; the two remaining ones, namely the Biannual Budget Execution Report and the Citizens' Budget Guide were not available.

Overview of search items, Herceg Novi Municipality webpage:


• GUSINJE

The homepage of the official web presentation of Gusinje Municipality (www.opstinagusinje.me/) showed the total budget amount for the current year, but the section that would lead to budget documents could not be located. The Budget section could be reached via the Citizen Service section, and then proceeding to the Open Town section. This subsection included only one document – the Budget Decision of Gusinje Municipality for 2018. The Draft Budget Decision for 2018 was located under the News subsection (at the time of our search it was on the ninth page), under alls to public discussions. This document was available only in PDF and was thus not machine-readable.

The Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017, Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 and the Citizens' Budget Guide were not available. It should be noted that the sections titled Local Council Decisions and Public Discussions were empty.

Overview of search items, Gusinje Municipality webpage:


14

• KOLASIN

The official web presentation of Kolasin Municipality (http://kolasin.me/), under the section titled Open Town, had a submenu which featured the Budget-Final Account subsection as its fifth item. Although the subsection was there, it was not updated and did not include the documents covered by our survey.

Draft Budget Decision for 2018 was available on the municipal notice board, posted there on 1 December 2017, together with the call to Public Discussions on the Draft Budget Decision. The Budget Decision of Kolasin Municipality for 2018 was posted under the Local Council section, as part of the material for the meetings. The material included were several compressed documents which were being discussed at that time, which hampered access to the document. The Budget Decision was available in machine-readable format (Word), unlike the Draft Decision (PDF).

The Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017, Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 and Citizens' Budget Guide were not available on the official web presentation of Kolasin Municipality. The presentation, thus, featured two out of the five relevant budget documents.

Overview of search items, Kolasin Municipality webpage::


• KOTOR

The homepage of the official webpage of Kotor Municipality (http://kotor.me/me) included a dropdown menu titled Documents, with a subsection titled Budget. However, this led only to the 2018 Budget Decision.

Draft Budget Decision of Kotor Municipality for 2018 was available under the section Public Consultations and Notices; from there, it was necessary to proceed to Public Consultations and Invitations of the Secretariat for Local Revenues, Budget and Finance, and then review the contents of the section Public Consultations on the Draft Budget Decision of Kotor Municipality for 2018. The attachment to the invitation to public consultations included this budget document. Both published documents were available only in PDF and were thus not machine-readable.

15

The remaining three budget documents - Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017, Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 and Citizens' Budget Guide – were not available on the Municipality's web presentation.

Overview of search items, Kotor Municipality webpage:


• MOJKOVAC

The Budget Decision of Mojkovac Municipality for 2018 and the Final Budget Account for 2017 were published under the banner titled Budget, displayed visibly on the homepage of the official web presentation (https://www.mojkovac.me/). At the time of our search, Draft Budget Decision of Mojkovac Municipality for 2018 was available on page 2/16 of the News section. The Notice had been posted by the Secretariat for Finance, Economy and Local Public Revenues of the Municipality of Mojkovac on 11 April 2018, and the document was downloadable together with the Schedule of Public Discussions on the Draft Budget Decision. The Budget Decision and the Final Budget Account were available in machine-readable format (Word), unlike the Draft Budget (PDF).

The official web presentation of Mojkovac Municipality did not include the Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 or the Citizens Budget Guide. Thus, three out of five relevant budget documents were available.

Overview of search items, Mojkovac Municipality webpage:


16

• NIKSIC

The homepage of the official web presentation of Niksic Municipality (http://niksic.me/), included the Budget section, which led to two out of five relevant budget documents., namely the Draft Budget Decision of Niksic Municipality for 2018 and the adopted Budget Decision of Niksic Municipality for 2018.

Although these two documents could be reached by a single click and were easily accessible to citizens, this was not the case with the Decision on the Final Budget Account of Niksic Municipality for 2017. Accessing this document required at least five clicks, starting from the homepage and then on to Local Administration, Local Council, Meetings, and the search of the materials for each meeting. The Decision on the Final Budget Account was included in the set of materials for the 10th meeting of the Local Council, held on 11 July 2018. It was necessary to click on the title, then on the Materials item and open the Google drive with 15 documents; the title of the Decision was misspelled (Zavrtni rafun instead of Završni račun), which prevented it from appearing when applying the search tool or Google advanced search.

The materials for the meetings, specifically the materials for the 6th meeting of the Local Council, held on 18 July 2017, included the document titled Report on the execution of the budget and investment policy of Niksic Municipality for the period January–June 2017. Although included here, access to this document was impeded, as the title was misspelled and read: 2.Izvjettaj o izvrtenju Budºeta i investic. politike za jan-jun 2016.god..doc.

The search of the municipal website did not identify the Citizens’ Budget Guide, leading to the conclusion that four out of five relevant budget documents were posted on the site. All of the four documents available on the site, with the access barriers mentioned above, were published in machine-readable format (Word).

Overview of search items, Niksic Municipality webpage:


17

• PETNJICA

The homepage of the official web presentation of Petnjica Municipality (http://www.petnjica.co.me/) did not include a segment or section/subsection titled Budget that would lead to budget documents.

The Budget Decision of the Municipality for 2018 was located under the Decisions subsection, which was reachable via the Local Council homepage section. Draft Budget Decision of the Municipality for 2018 was obtainable via keyword search of the homepage. Both published documents were available in machine-readable format (Word).

The Decision on the Final Budget Account of Petnjica Municipality for 2017, the Biannual Budget Execution Report and the Citizens’ Budget Guide were not available.

Overview of search items, Petnjica Municipality webpage:


• PLAV

At the time of the survey and development of this Report, the official webpage of Plav Municipality was not working, which resulted in its being the worst-ranked municipality in terms of budget transparency.

• PLUZINE

The web presentation of Pluzine Municipality (http://www.pluzine.me/) did not have a special section or heading titled Budget that would lead to consolidated budget documents.

Navigating the sections and subsections Relevant, Public Discussions, Public Discussions 2015/2016/2017, it was possible to access the Draft Budget Decision of Pluzine Municipality for 2018, attached to the call for public discussions. The Budget Decision for 2018 was located under the subsection titled 2018 Decisions, reached via the Local Council and Local Council Decisions sections.

The Decision on the Final Budget Account of Pluzine Municipality was found through advanced Google search, but it was not possible to identify where citizens could find this

18

budget document on the web presentation. All the three published documents were available in machine-readable format (Word).

The Biannual Budget Execution Report and the Citizens' Budget Guide were not available on the website of Pluzine Municipality.

Overview of search items, Pluzine Municipality webpage:


• PLJEVLJA

The homepage of the official web presentation of Pljevlja Municipality included a Budget shortcut (https://www.pljevlja.me/), which led to the Decision on the Budget of the Municipality for 2018 and the Decision on the Final Budget Account of the Municipality for 2017. Other budget documents were also located there, in chronological order, for the previous year and for the next year - 2019.

Website search, under sections titled Local Council Documents and webpage titled Local Council Meetings, enabled access to the Pljevlja Municipality Budget Execution Report for the period January – June 2017. Draft Budget Decision of the Municipality was found by using the search option and under the News section, which, however, was not accessible from the homepage. All four published documents were available only in PDF, and were thus not machine-readable.

Citizens’ Budget Guide was not available.

Overview of search items, Pljevlja Municipality webpage:


19

• CAPITAL CITY OF PODGORICA

The web presentation of the Capital City of Podgorica (http://podgorica.me/) did not include a search option, which would enable access to documents based on the inserted search words; it did not include any sections, submenus or shortcuts titled Budget to help citizens with their searches.

The Decision on the Budget of the Capital City of Podgorica for 2018 was available among the materials discussed at the Local Council meetings, following from there the link to Other Council Documents, Decisions and ultimately clicking on the 25th meeting, when the Decision had been discussed. Draft Decision on the Budget of the Capital City for 2018 was not found during the search nor among the materials and reports from the meetings, but was found in the advanced search.

In order to access the Biannual Report on the Capital City Budget Execution, it was necessary to start from the homepage and open the links to subsites. The dropdown menu offered the webpage titled Capital City Council. Clicking on it led to the section Council Meetings-Materials, and another click on View All enabled access to the sets of materials for individual meetings. The third item among the materials for the 23rd meeting, held on 28 July 2017, was the Briefing on the Capital City Budget Execution for the period January–June 2017.

The Budget Decision (draft and adopted version) were not available in machine-readable format (but in PDF), unlike the Biannual Report (available in Word).

The Capital City published the Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 under the Archives section. The Citizens’ Budget Guide for 2018 did not come up as a result of the search of the official web presentation of the Capital City of Podgorica, although the Capital City developed this document for the next year i.e. 2019.

Overview of search items, Capital City of Podgorica webpage:


20

• ROZAJE

The official web presentation of Rozaje Municipality (https://www.rozaje.me/) included a segment titled At Your Service and a Budget submenu which led to the Draft Decision on the Budget of the Municipality for 2018, in PDF.

This was the only budget document on the municipal website identified during the survey, concluding with December 2018. The Decision on the Budget of the Municipality for 2018, Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017, Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 or Citizens’ Budget Guide were not available during the survey. Still, in the follow-up to the Draft Report shared with the representatives of the Municipality, after it had been pointed that the link to the adopted version of the 2018 Budget Decision was not working, this oversight was corrected, and this important document was subsequently published.

Overview of search items, Rozaje Municipality webpage:

Draft Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018 ✔

(adopted) Decision on the 2018 Budget Decision Subsequently published

(adopted) Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 ✖Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 ✖Budget Guide (Citizens’ Budget) for 2018 ✖

• TIVAT

Tivat Municipality published three out of the five relevant documents on its official web presentation (http://opstinativat.com/). The Budget submenu on the homepage led to the Municipality’s budget decisions for the years leading up to 2007, including the one for 2018.

Draft Budget Decision for 2018 was available under the section Public Discussions in 2017, which was accessible via the homepage Public Discussions submenu.

The Decision on the Final Budget Account of the Municipality Tivat for 2017 was available on the official web presentation, under the section titled Decisions Adopted at the 20th Meeting of the Local Council held on 12 June 2018. The homepage provided the dropdown menu titled Local Self-Government, which included a Local Council subsection. Clicking on the Decisions Adopted at Local Council Meetings revealed new links; the relevant one was titled The Local Council as of 11 May 2016. The document was accessible via the link Decisions Adopted at Local Council Meetings; access to the document was hampered, as it was necessary to open each individual set of materials in order to locate it. All of the three published documents were available in machine-readable format (Word).

The Biannual Budget Execution Report and Citizens’ Budget Guide of Tivat Municipality were not available.

21

Overview of search items, Tivat Municipality webpage:


• ULCINJ

The official webpage of Ulcinj Municipality (http://www.opstinaulcinj.com/) included a Budget item, a shortcut leading to one of the five relevant budget documents – the Decision on the Budget of Ulcinj Municipality for 2018. The Decision was available only in PDF, and was thus not machine-readable.

The rest of the budget documents that we searched the web presentation of Ulcinj Municipality for (Draft Decision on the Budget for 2018, Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017, Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 and Citizens’ Budget Guide) were not available. Similarly to Bijelo Polje and Podgorica, Ulcinj Municipality developed the Citizens’ Budget Guide for 2019.

Overview of search items, Ulcinj Municipality webpage:

Draft Decision on the Municipal Budget for 2018 ✔(adopted) Decision on the 2018 Budget Decision ✖(adopted) Decision on the Final Budget Account for 2017 ✖Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 ✖Budget Guide (Citizens’ Budget) for 2018 ✖

• SAVNIK

The Budget item on the web presentation of Savnik Municipality (http://www.savnik.me/) was not visible or accessible to citizens – the homepage did not include an appropriate section or menu that would serve as a shortcut to budget documents. This item was visible only if one opened the dropdown menu under the Notices and Information section. However, the most recent documents in this area of the website dated back to 2015.

Draft Budget Decision of the Municipality for 2018 was located under the Website News – Other News section and was available only after going through the pages under the section.

22

The Decision on the Final Budget Account of the Municipality was available as part of the set of materials from the Local Council meeting - a compressed folder, difficult for the citizens to access. All of the three published documents were available in machine-readable format (Word).

The Biannual Budget Execution Report of Savnik Municipality for 2017 was not available on the municipal website. The materials from the Local Council meeting, specifically the Conclusion on adopting the Budget Execution Report of Savnik Municipality for the period January-June 2017 suggested that the report had been adopted, but it was not available on the website.

The Citizens’ Budget Guide was not available either on the Municipality's web presentation.

Overview of search items, Savnik Municipality webpage::


• ZABLJAK

Accessing the budget documents, namely the Draft Budget Decision for 2018, Budget Decision for 2018 and the Final Budget Account for 2017, on the official web presentation of the Municipality (http://zabljak.me/) turned out to be a pretty simple task. All of the three published documents were available in machine-readable format (Word, Excel).

The homepage featured a conspicuous Budget submenu which led to the three documents as well as the budget documents for the previous years. Still, the Biannual Budget Execution Report for 2017 and the Citizens’ Budget Guide were not available on the Municipality's web presentation.

Overview of search items, Zabljak Municipality webpage:


23

FROM TRANSPARENCY TO OPENNESS: PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS ON LOCAL BUDGETS

Transparency is not a goal in itself. Opening the documents and making them available to the public is the first and essential step towards involving the public in the decision-making and discussions concerning major local priorities. For this reason, this section focuses on the practice of organising public discussions on local budgets, relying on the reports from the public discussions on draft budget decisions in 2018.

Unlike the central level, where the Ministry of Finance is exempt from the obligation of organising public consultations on the national budget, the Law on Local Self-Government explicitly requires the municipalities to hold public consultations of minimum duration of 15 days, before they adopt the budget.6 All the municipalities complied with this requirement with regard to the local budgets for 2018.

Although seven municipalities did not have sufficiently specific reporting on citizen participation in public discussions on the budget (Budva, Tivat, Herceg Novi, Pljevlja, Pluzine, Andrijevica and Gusinje), the available data show that citizens largely did not take part in budget consultations for 2018. The Municipality of Bar stood out, with public consultations held in local neighbourhoods, gathering 174 participants. On the other hand, available reports suggest that no citizens attended the public discussions on local budgets for 2018 in Podgorica, Cetinje, Petnjica and Savnik.

In their reports, the municipalities often noted the low level of interest in participation in public discussions. However, as shown by this survey, they did not invest efforts to explain the main budget categories to citizens nor were proactive enough in publishing the key budget documents in a user-friendly format.

6 / Law on Local Self-Government (Official Gazette of Montenegro 002/18 of 10 January 2018).

24

Overview of public discussions on local budgets for 2018:

MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF CITIZENS WHO ATTENDED THE PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS

PETNJICAThree public discussions were held: one for citizens and representatives of local neighbourhoods, another one for the businesses and NGOs (no interest), and a third one for political parties.

BAR

Neighbourhoods: Mrkojevici – 25 participants, 12 of them took part in the discussion; Spic – 26 participants, 12 took part in the discussion; Ostros and Sestani – 44 participants, 4 took part in the discussion; Crmnica – 7 participants, 4 took part in the discussion; Bar I, II, III, IV, V, Susanj and Stari Bar – 72 participants, 25 took part in the discussion.

HERCEG NOVIThe number of participants was not specified; it was noted that the discussions were attended by members of neighbourhood councils and a small number of citizens.

KOLASIN The number of participants was not specified.

ANDRIJEVICA

Two public discussions were held: one for the representatives of local neighbourhoods and citizens (10 of the former and a few of the latter) and another one for representatives of public institutions, NGOs, political parties and sports clubs. .

BERANE

The number of participants was not specified. Four public discussions were held: 1) for businesses and entrepreneurs; 2) for local neighbourhoods, trade-unions and citizens; 3) for NGO sector, and 4) for political parties.

BIJELO POLJE The Decision on interim finance of the Municipality of Bijelo Polje was adopted in late 2017.

CETINJE The report noted absence of citizens’ interest in taking part in the public discussions.

DANILOVGRAD The number of participants was not specified.

KOTOR The number of participants was not specified.

MOJKOVAC

The number of participants was not specified. It was stated that actions had been taken to motivate citizens to take part, but the attendance had still been below expectations. The discussions involved representatives of political parties, sports organisations, local neighbourhoods and individuals. Another public discussion was held, which involved representatives of three local neighbourhoods, but the exact number of participants was not specified.

25

MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF CITIZENS WHO ATTENDED THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

NIKSIC Besides the drafter and the media, only two citizens attended and took part in the discussion.

PLUZINE The number of participants was not specified.

PLJEVLJA

Three public discussions were held: one with representatives of urban neighbourhoods, another one with representatives of rural neighbourhoods and a third one with the group of councillors from the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists. The number of citizens who attended the discussions was not specified.

PODGORICA The report stated that citizens were not interested in participation in the central public discussions.

ROZAJEThe number of participants was not specified. The discussion was attended by “a certain number” of citizens, representatives of NGOs, local councillors and media representatives.

SAVNIK Absence of interested participants was noted.

TIVAT The number of participants in the public consultations intended for neighbourhood representatives and citizens was not specified.

ZABLJAK The “gathering” was attended by 15 people.

ULCINJ

Three public consultations were organised. The number of participants in the first one was not specified; the second one was not attended due to harsh weather conditions, while the third one was attended by 10 interested citizens.

GUSINJE There were 22 participants.

BUDVA The number of participants was not specified.

PLAV Two public discussions were held, with 24 participants.

26

WHAT NEXT?

From the group of the relevant documents, the ones that were most frequently published were the budget decisions (draft and adopted versions). During the period covered by this Report (2017 and 2018), none of the municipalities published Citizens’ Budgets. Bearing in mind the importance of the Final Budget Account, as the document intended to present, inter alia, any actual spending deviations from the planned spending for the given year, as well as the report on capital projects,7 it is concerning that eight out of the twenty-three municipalities did not post the adopted decision on the final local budget account on the website. That means that the municipal websites of Budva, Gusinje, Kolasin, Kotor, Petnjica, Plav, Rozaje and Ulcinj did not ensure to citizens access to complete information on the local budget execution in 2017.

Even when the relevant documents were posted on the municipal webpages, they were often located under the sections “far” from the homepage, they were not highlighted in any way and had misspelled titles and typos that made access more difficult. The most illustrative example in this regard is the Municipality of Niksic. Although the Municipality published the Final Budget Account for 2017, the title was misspelled as Zavrtni rafun instead of Završni račun. In addition, most of the published documents were not available in machine-readable format, but usually as PDF documents, which could not be searched and whose specific sections, the ones most relevant for specific groups of citizens, could not be downloaded. Thus, mere publication of material, if not accompanied by the willingness to make it accessible to citizens, does not ensure a satisfactory degree of transparency.

The Municipality of Plav was the worst-ranked one in the assessment, as during the survey it had no functional webpage, its citizens denied any official newsletter on the functioning of their local self-government, including public finance. The Municipality of Ulcinj, whose website included only the adopted 2018 Budget Decision, shared alarmingly little information on public finance with the citizens.

The presence of a specific budget section on the websites was largely confusing, as such sections did not include all the key budget information. Although having such a section and homepage menu was justified, if these are not regularly updated that can only complicate access to key information.

Data show that most citizens did not take part in the local public consultations concerning the budget. One of the reasons behind such poor participation, though, was lack of the willingness on the part of the local self-governments to proactively inform their citizens about public finance; the Report captured this by registering the complete absence of citizen-friendly budget presentations and insufficient publication of budget execution information. The only four municipalities that published the budget execution reports in

7 / Law on Budget and Fiscal Responsibility (Official Gazette of Montenegro 020/14 of 25 May 2014; 056/14 of 24 Dec 2014; 070/17 of 27 Oct 2017; 004/18 of 26 Jan 2018; 055/18 of 1 Aug 2018).

27

the first six months of 2017 were Bijelo Polje, Niksic, Pljevlja and Podgorica; this may pose a challenge for the implementation of the new obligations laid down by the Law on Local Self-Government Finance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The guidelines for development of local self-government portals should include the obligation of presenting and clearly displaying a separate budget section on the website homepage; the section should contain all of the key budget documents, including the draft and adopted versions of the decision on the local budget, reports on budget execution that the municipalities are required to publish during the year, final budget accounts and citizens’ budgets;

• In addition to the draft local budget decisions, which are subject to public consultations, local self-governments should seek to publish other key budget documents, including quarterly, biannual and annual budget execution reports and adopted budget decisions in the form of citizens’ budget;

• All the reports and budget documents should be available in machine-readable format, to ensure to citizens smooth access to information about the budget categories that are of most interest to them.

28

LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENTS’ WEB PRESENTATIONS:

• Official webpage of Andrijevica Municipality – http://opstinaandrijevica.me

• Official webpage of Bar Municipality – https://bar.me

• Official webpage of Bijelo Polje Municipality – http://berane.me/

• Official webpage of Bijelo Polje Municipality – https://www.bijelopolje.co.me/

• Official webpage of Budva Municipality – http://budva.me/

• Official webpage of the Old Royal Capital of Cetinje – http://www.cetinje.me/

• Official webpage of Danilovgrad Municipality – http://danilovgrad.me/

• Official webpage of Herceg Novi Municipality – http://www.hercegnovi.me

• Official webpage of Gusinje Municipality – www.opstinagusinje.me/

• Official webpage of Kolasin Municipality – http://kolasin.me/

• Official webpage of Kotor Municipality – http://kotor.me/

• Official webpage of Mojkovac Municipality – https://www.mojkovac.me/

• Official webpage of Niksic Municipality – http://niksic.me/

• Official webpage of Petnjica Municipality – http://www.petnjica.co.me/

• Official webpage of Pluzine Municipality – http://www.pluzine.me/

• Official webpage of Pljevlja Municipality – https://www.pljevlja.me/

• Official webpage of the Capital City of Podgorica – http://podgorica.me/

• Official webpage of Rozaje Municipality – https://www.rozaje.me/

• Official webpage of Tivat Municipality – http://opstinativat.com/

• Official webpage of Ulcinj Municipality – http://www.opstinaulcinj.com/

• Official webpage of Ulcinj Municipality – http://www.savnik.me/

• Official webpage of Zabljak Municipality – http://zabljak.me/

Institute Alternative (IA) is a non-governmental organization, established in September 2007 by a

group of citizens with experience in civil society, public administration and business sector.

Our mission is to contribute to strengthening of democracy and good governance through and

policy analysis as well as monitoring of public institutions performance.

Our objectives are to increase the quality of work, accountability and transparency, efficiency of

public institutions and public officials; to encourage open, public, constructive and well-argument

discussions on important policy issues; raising public awareness about important policy issues,

strengthening the capacity of all sectors in the state and society for the development of public policies.

The values we follow in our work are dedication to our mission, independence, constant learning,

networking, cooperation and teamwork.

We function as a think tank or a research centre, focusing on the overarching areas of good

governance, transparency and accountability.

On the basis of our five programmes, we monitor the process of accession negotiations with the EU,

actively participating in working groups Public procurement (5), Judiciary and Fundamental rights (23)

and Financial control (32). Our flagship project is the Public Policy School, which is organized since

2012, and in 2018 we organized the first Open Budget School.

So far we cooperated with over 40 organizations within regional networks in the Western Balkans

and with over 100 organizations in Montenegro. Institute is actively engaged in regional networks:

Think for Europe (TEN), Pointpulse, SELDI, WeBER, UNCAC Coalition, Global BTAP, PASOS and The

Southest Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection.

The results of our research are summarized in 107 studies, reports and analyses, and the decision-

makers were addressed 1036 recommendations. Over four thousand times we communicated our

proposals and recommendation to the media for better quality public policies.

We started three internet pages. My town is a pioneer endeavour of visualization of budgetary data of

local self-administrations. My Administration followed, which serves as an address for all those citizens

that have encountered a problem when interacting with public administration and its service delivery

system. The newest internet portal, My Money, provided national budget data visualization.

Institute Alternative regularly publishes information about finances, projects and donors that

support the work of the organization. For this reason, the Institute have five-stars rating third year in a

row, according to a survey conducted by the international non-profit organization Transparify, which

evaluates transparency for over 200 research centers.

President of the Managing Board is Stevo Muk, and our organization currently has ten members.

www.mojgrad.me

GDJE IDEMOJ NOVAC

www.mojnovac.mewww.institut-alternativa.org