Word Limit on RTI Requests? Government proposes amendments

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal agency for the implementation of the RTI Act has proposed a series of amendments to the RTI (regulation of fee and cost) Rules 2005 and the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. Specifically, the amendments seek to restrict the number of words that an applicant can use while filing an information request under the RTI Act 2005. The word limit has been posted at 250. In addition, to curbing the word limit, the new rules also seek to restrict the questions filed under an RTI to one subject. The DoPT has circulated the draft amendments for comments and individuals can write in to [email protected] by December 27, 2010. RTI activists have strongly protested the proposed amendments which if implemented would severely curb and restrict citizens access to information under the RTI Act. Activists believe that the restriction of the word count would pose a major problem to illiterate and vulnerable groups for whom the RTI has proved to a be very useful tool and have pointed to the danger of the arbitrary rejection of applications based on the word limit. Most recently, the National Advisory Council has come out against the amendments terming them “ultra vries”. The NAC working group on transparency, accountability and governance has rejected the proposed amendments and has passed a resolution stating that “All amendments to RTI rules must be based on extensive public consultations. Where public objections or suggestions are ignored, reasons must be made public, in accordance with letter and spirit of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.”

CIPE partners focus on combating corruption around the world

The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) strengthens democracy around the globe through private enterprise and market-oriented reform. CIPE is one of the four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since 1983, CIPE has worked with business leaders, policymakers, and journalists to build the civic institutions vital to a democratic society. CIPE’s key program areas include anti-corruption, advocacy, business associations, corporate governance, democratic governance, access to information, the informal sector and property rights, and women and youth.

CIPE’s most recent quarterly newsletter, the OverseasREPORT, highlights CIPE partners’ numerous anti-corruption efforts around the world. Combating corruption is not simply about prosecuting the biggest offenders; it is also about changing the local day-to-day mindset. CIPE partners in Russia, Egypt, and Yemen – among other places – strive daily to reduce corruption, increase transparency, and level the playing field for everyone. Click here for more information.

PAISA Track: Taking PAISA to parents- learnings from Andhra Pradesh

PAISA in Andhra Pradesh (AP) is being implemented with a slight twist – one which has taught us a lot! The district administration (read district collector) of Hyderabad city has in the last few months expressed a strong interest in strengthening school management committees (SMC) as mandated under the Right to Education Act. Hyderabad is one of the few districts in the country where any serious effort is being made to implement this provision of the RTE. To facilitate this process, the collector connected with our PAISA partner ASER/ Pratham.  Naturally, given PAISA’s own interest in this area, we got involved. The first step was to quite simply get the meetings started. One community mobilizer was assigned to 12 schools (12 SMCs) and tasked with encouraging parents to attend meetings and to facilitate discussions at these meetings. This direct engagement saw some quick results. Parents began to show up – the numbers rose from 5 to 10 to 15 and after a point the numbers were large enough even for the local municipal councilors to show up at the meetings. The meetings tended largely to focus on issues around drop outs, teacher student interaction with the councilors and sundry government officials giving lectures.  Our biggest learning from this exercise was that given the right kind of input, parents are interested in engaging with the school and intensive mobilization, therefore does yield results.

Four months in to this exercise, the Hyderabad team began to wonder what next. That meetings were taking place was an important first step but for them to sustain, the meetings needed to have a concrete agenda and a concrete output.

The RTE mandates that all schools prepare an annual school development plan. And so we decided to extend the PAISA tool to the SMC’s to get them to start the planning process. The Hyderabad collector seemed enthused by the idea. In fact he was facing a related problem – the schools had been reporting a lot of underutilization (monies not being spent) and he thought this could be an opportunity to try and get the schools energized to spend. And so he did what he knew best – issued a series of orders mandating that all SMC meetings in December discuss school level funds (using formats that we developed) and make a plan to spend the unutilized money. We were excited (or at any rate I was excited). I thought that the orders would be our weapon to get this moving. So we teamed up the SMC mobilizers with our PAISA surveyors to go out and collect data on school funds to understand the state of the problem themselves. At the same time, we also prepared formats that required the school officials to share information on funds at the meetings and develop an action plan. To implement this, we organized the first round of PAISA trainings last week.

Post the training we did a small pilot in a school in Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad. The Pratham and PAISA teams arrived at the meeting armed with their formats and the government orders. But once the conversation began things started falling apart. The officials, particularly the Head Masters were simply not interested in the proceedings – they had to be there because of the government orders but they really didn’t see the need to engage the parents, most of whom for them were not aware of how to do complex administrative tasks like make plans. And as for me – they looked at me as though I was from Mars! The meeting didn’t lead to much but it left me convinced that if such interactions were to take place effectively, a lot can change. Here is an example – the parents complained that the biggest problem in the school was that the toilets were dirty and kids ended up coming home half way through school. The school claimed that they had a cleaner whom they paid Rs. 1,000 a month to but who came only twice a week. For a school with 750 kids enrolled, this was obviously not enough. So we asked the parents if they could find a solution – and they did. One parent volunteered to identify a sweeper that would come everyday to the school for that price. Immediate action!

The problem however is that the frontline officials remain unconvinced. And this is why we don’t see effective change on the ground. On paper, India looks like the most participatory democracy in the world. Scheme after scheme, government order after order mandate that people –whether through organized community groups or other means – must make plans and audit programs. The reality of course, is completely different. A good administrator will pass a progressive order but she will never spend time motivating her team to implement the order. This is exactly what is happening in Hyderabad. The  collector seems to believe that his problems will be solved if his team implements his orders. But he doesn’t see the need to work with his team convincing them of his mission and carrying them with him. For me the greatest learning from Hyderabad PAISA is that change can only come if the foot soldiers, those on the frontlines are convinced of the  need to for change and motivated to implement it.

Public and Secret Funds

An executive order passed by a federal secretary supersedes the collective will of the country`s parliamentarians. Shocking as this may sound, the observation is based on evidence. Invisible bureaucrats that lurk behind politicians decide how our resources are to be put to use.Politicians complain about the unbridled power wielded by bureaucrats but have done little effectively to reduce these powers. Consider, for example, the following tale that unfolded when I submitted a request for information in the context of the Special Publicity Fund, under which the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting spends over Rs20m every year.

I asked for certified copies of the strategy and advertisement plans to spend under the Special Publicity Fund from Oct 1, 2002 to March 20, 2008, in addition to certified information about the names and addresses of the media houses, public relations firms, consultants or journalists that received funds under this head during this period. Further, I requested certified copies of the contracts under which the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had released funds from the Special Publicity Fund to such recipients during the same period.

The ministry did not provide the information within the 21 days stipulated by the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002. Consequently, a complaint about the ministry`s failure was lodged with the federal ombudsman`s office and on Sept 29, 2008, it directed the ministry to submit a report.Nearly a month later, on Oct 24, 2008, the ministry replied that the Special Publicity Fund is similar to the secret fund provided to any government organisation, as are allocations made under the head of `A03914 — Secret Services Expenditure`.

Furthermore, the ministry maintained, the Special Publicity Fund is “strictly utilised in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the Secret Services Expenditure issued by the Financial Division from time to time”. An analysis of the budget books revealed that the Special Publicity Fund was included in the `Others` category in the 2008-09 budget. Other allocations in this category were to the Pakistan Institute of National Affairs, Internews, the Institute of Regional Studies and News Network International.

When this issue was raised with the ministry, it responded that the fund had been declared `secret` by the Finance Division through a letter dated April 29, 1976. Yet when access to it was sought, the ministry said that the letter was not available with it. The federal ombudsman determined that the allocation for Secret Service Expenditure had the ID 1358 while the Special Publicity Fund had the ID 1357. Furthermore, it determined that on the New Item Statement for the Special Publicity Fund the entry against ID1357 had been titled `Secret Service Expenditure`. Here the plot started to really thicken.

Through the federal ombudsman`s office, we demanded that details pertaining to the utilisation of the Special Publicity Fund be provided to us. But the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not provide the letter under which this budget head had been declared secret expenditure. It maintained that the information could not be provided since it was secret expenditure, and had been declared thus through an executive order of the federal secretary of the ministry, under powers vested in him by the Cabinet Division.

Yet the fact is that parliamentarians approved the Special Publicity Fund as a normal budget item, just as they did other budgetary allocations for the Pakistan Institute of National Affairs, Internews etc which were also placed in the `Others` category of the 2008-09 budget. The Special Publicity Fund was not passed as a secret service expenditure item.

Therefore, the federal secretary`s executive order that treated it as such is in conflict with the collective will of parliament.
In a parliamentary democracy it is the collective will of the people, as represented by parliament, and not a federal secretary`s executive order, that should have supremacy.

This entire exercise, with the Special Publicity Fund as a case study, raises three important questions: first, how many budget items are passed by parliament as normal items but treated as secret expenditure? Secondly, how can the political leadership exercise its authority in the way in which public funds are utilised? And third, how can the judicious utilisation of public funds be ensured?

The prerogative to declare any public fund secret expenditure should rest with parliament alone. Powers vested in this regard with federal secretaries should be revoked through an act of parliament. Furthermore, the relevant parliamentary committees should exercise their powers to oversee how the funds are being utilised. As things stand, a federal secretary submits a certificate to the accountant general of Pakistan containing one line about how many funds have been utilised.

We need to enact effective laws regarding the right to information to ensure the transparent functioning of public departments. Such laws have been adopted in over 90 countries.

It is about time the two major political parties made good on the promise they made in the Charter of Democracy about enacting an information law and repealing the ineffective Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002, the Balochistan Freedom of Information Act 2005, and the Sindh Freedom of Information Act 2006. The new information laws should provide easy access to information. The ombudsman`s office, which is toothless as an appellant body, should be replaced with an information commission as is the case in many countries round the world. Being the most populous province, Punjab needs to enact a right to information law that can serve as an example for the other provinces.

The writer works for the Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives and can be contacted at [email protected]

The article was published in Dawn on December 7, 2010.

PAISA Track

Under the Accountability Initiative’s flagship project, PAISA, a pilot survey tracking expenditures at the school level is being launched from 4th – 17th December 2010. The survey will cover one block in 10 districts across 7 focus states namely, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and West Bengal. The survey will collect school level data on grants received under the Government of India’s flagship education programme, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA).

The first phase of the survey was flagged of on 2 December 2010 in Hyderabad. Over the next two weeks, PAISA Associates and volunteers across 7 states will be working to collect school level data on grants and expenditure under SSA. During this time we will be bringing you short notes from the field sharing our experiences and findings. So watch “PAISA Track” for more!

Governance Knowledge Centre

The Governance Knowledge Centre (GKC) is an initiative of the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances under the Capacity Building for Poverty Reduction programme. It was launched by the Prime Minister during the National Conference of Collectors held at New Delhi in May, 2005.

In March 2010, OneWorld Foundation India was mandated to upgrade the Governance Knowledge Centre into a trusted knowledge repository with a vibrant and dynamic platform for the sharing of ideas, information, and resources in the field of governance.

The GKC is a point of digital reference on issues and practices in governance for functionaries across various government levels. It aims to provide knowledge and tools to facilitate effective public service delivery. The portal also facilitates collaborative creation of knowledge for stakeholders, through blogs peer-to-peer exchange platforms and a help desk on targeted government advisory.

 

Discussing Insititutional Accountability: Gurcharan Das and Yamini Aiyar

Author and commentator Gurcharan Das discusses institutional accountability with Yamini Aiyar, Director of the Accountability Initiative, at the Millenium Campaign Lecuture Series, 2010. Their discussion touches upon failures of institutional accountability in India, the challenges of reforming bureaucracy and institutions, recent developments toward transparency and improving institutional delivery, and e-governance as a relatively successful model.

Part One:

Part Two:

Planning Commission: Call for inputs on Approach Paper for XIIth Plan

The Planning Commission, Government of India, is accepting inputs for inclusion in its Approach Paper for the XIIth Five Year Plan. The Approach Paper is prepared before a new Plan commences to outline the major targets, potential challenges in meeting these targets, and the broad framework for achieving the targets. It is approved by the Cabinet and the National Development Council. The Approach Paper is essentially a blueprint for the Plan itself.

All interested people can participate in the formulation of the Approach Paper by sending in their suggestions at this link. Responses will be accepted until the 10th of December, 2010.

Suggestions can be made on any or all of the following areas:

  • Citizens’ Expectations
  • Governance and Institutions
  • Markets
  • Global Developments
  • Demography and Skills
  • Science and Technology
  • Information
  • Land, Climate and Environment
  • Innovation and Enterprise
  • Financing the Plan

 

 

India’s Financial Drain

Global Financial Integrity recently published a study, The Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008, that found that India has lost $462 billion in illegal assets during the period, as a result of corruption, bribery and tax evasion. $125 billion dollars were lost in just the past decade, and nearly half the total losses were incurred after economic liberalization in 1991.

At first glance, the figure put out by this study may raise eyebrows—how can illicit financial flows possibly be measured to the point of a concrete figure? The study uses the World Bank Residual Method and the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics to arrive at outflows of $213 billion, which when adjusted for accumulated interest increases to $462 billion. The study admits that the authors regard this figure as a conservative estimate—with outflows due to smuggling and trade mispricing not considered, and disparities in trade statistics not taken into account. If these factors were included, the figure would inevitably surge. At its core, the study is a situation model examining the interplay of various factors (economic, structural, governmental) that underlie the transfer of illicit financial capital; but due to the inherent randomness of illicit financial flows, the model is not predictive—i.e. it provides indications but cannot be used to chart out the future direction of these flows.

The real value of this study then lies in its laying out of a formal approach to understanding the drivers of illicit flows and how they are dynamically engaged with one another. The motivational drivers in this context are of course difficult to test empirically—illegal financial flows are not recorded, and motivations to build hidden stockpiles of wealth are difficult to measure. The proportional interplay of these forces is what is ultimately illuminated; a perhaps first of it’s kind map of the extraordinary financial toll of corruption, bribery and tax evasion the country has incurred since its’ independence.

An interesting finding of the study is that governance and structural issues carry more of the blame for these flows than India’s macroeconomic policies. Budget deficits and inflation, while playing their roles, were only a minor contributor to the scale of illicit outflows. The consequences of these outflows described by the study—draining currency reserves and reducing tax collection—contribute toward the widening income inequalities India’s population has faced over decades.

The policy challenges this presents are immense—accelerating income inequalities have widespread consequences beyond the economic for India’s social growth and civil unrest, and the rise of money-laundering rackets have implications for national security (funding terrorism) and social health (drug and human trafficking). The government must strengthen anti-money laundering efforts and provisions to combat the financing of terrorism—efforts that the Financial Action Task Force notes are relatively young. The government also needs to aggressively collect and utilize internationally available data on banks, and pricing of imports/ exports to detect abusive transfer pricing. India also needs to strengthen existing laws in order to widen its tax base and ensure that higher income groups do not get away with tax evasion and avoidance.

A recent conference I attended on Understanding the Politics of Taxation in India, had several speakers from various civil society organizations pointing toward tax reform as a means to curb illicit outflows. There was also anger at the accommodation of hot money in island tax havens, where many claimed that billions of dollars are funneled from the private wealth of Indian citizens and then transferred back into the country for investment, in what becomes an unaccounted for vicious cycle of transfers. Moves toward domestic tax reform, would then be helped by “internationally agreed tax standards” such as those proposed at the London G20 Summit in 2009 that led to the drawing up of a tax havens blacklist. The GFI report recommendations echo this when they point toward both developed and developing countries needing to uphold standards of financial integrity with their institutions so that domestic efforts in the developing world are not undermined by weak policies on the part of developed nations.

Globalization and liberalization have led to a widening of the illicit tax haven circuit—Alex Cobham in his Oxford Council on Good Governance Report “The tax consensus has failed!”, claims that the proportion of assets in tax havens belonging to residents of developing nations like India are similar to the share of these nations in World GDP. His results show that developing countries as a whole lose approximately $50 billion annually from the use of tax havens to evade tax. As income inequalities in India become more severe, wealth becomes more concentrated within a small group of high net worth individuals—a group the GFI study claims are the “main drivers of illicit financial flows”. Apart from the use of tax havens, corporate entities also use mispricing and tax planning to help with “profit shifting”—a practice that results in the loss of tax revenue as well as capital flight. The GFI study recommends that financial institutions should be required to identify in their records the natural (real) persons that own a financial account or any legal entity that owns a financial account. Policies geared toward creating a more equal income redistribution (addressing factors like the promotion of regressive taxes, the failure to charge all income to tax), would be significantly aided by large-scale efforts toward a corporate culture that promotes giving and discourages tax evasion and avoidance.

Redistributive policies and tax reforms in India to curb illicit financial flows are  urgently needed to begin to address the country’s rising shadow economy and ensure that income generated is inclusively shared by the population. These measures must be matched by strong international financial laws and institutions as well as engagement with the endemic corruption across Indian institutions and measures to improve private sector attitudes toward taxation. Given the sheer scale of financial outflows, a commitment to the policy guidelines set out by Global Financial Integrity would be a step toward addressing stagnating poverty levels and improving performance on human development.

 

Rishiv Khattar is a Research Intern at the Accountability Initiative.

Explore AI’s Document Library

Our website www.accountabilityindia.org is designed as a comprehensive source on the state of accountability in India with information on civil society experiments, accountability tool kits, and relevant research and analytical work.

An important component of the website is the Document Library. This is a collection of conceptual, analytical and empirical literature on the broad subject of governance and accountability from India and around the world. It is designed as a one-stop source of information for students, researchers, academics, practitioners and policymakers interested in these issues.

The documents are organized into different categories including Decentralization, Democracy and Citizenship, Service Delivery Reforms (Education, Health), International Case Studies, Corruption, Right to Information, Budgets, Media, and so on. Most of the documents can be downloaded from the website. Where this is not permitted/ possible, a link is provided to the website hosting the document or information is provided about how to access it.

Selection criteria: We monitor a wide range of publication sources regularly, including Universities, Research and Policy Institutes, NGOs and Donors. Materials are carefully selected by our research team to ensure that they are relevant to the topic areas, demonstrate good practice or significant insight and represent a range of perspectives. Only the most credible and policy-relevant research, toolkits, analyses and case studies are included.

We believe that a collection of documents such as in our library can be a valuable resource for student researchers working on governance issues. We invite you to explore the library and make use of it.

The Accountability Initiative Team

We regularly update the collection in the library. If you would like to recommend any new publications for inclusion, please email us at [email protected]. Please supply a link to the full text online if possible so that we can review the document and link to it. Alternatively, if you are the copyright holder you can send us an electronic copy of the document if you would like us to review it and possibly host it on our web site.