methodology to measure local responsibility, transparency and accountability
DESCRIPTION
June 2008- This document created in FYR Macedonia outlines a methodology for measuring the level of responsibility, transparency and accountability of Western Balkans local governments to better fight corruption.TRANSCRIPT
METHODOLOGYFor measuring the Index of Responsibility,
Transparency and Accountability (RTA) at local level
Skopje, June, 2008
Prepared by Zoran Jachev
Donald Bowser
Editing Igor Kozarov
Design and printingArcuss design
ISBN978-9989-188-41-1
Project"Fighting corruption to improve governance"
Project Team UNDPFatmir Musa – Project manager
Aleksandra Vasilevska – Project assistant
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Need for the Methodology for measuring the Index of responsibility, transparency and accountability at local level ............................................................................ 7
2. Previous experiences in corruption measuring tools and weaknesses ............................... 7
3. Characteristics of Methodology and Instrument ........................................................................10
4. Description of the Methodology and the Instrument ..............................................................11
5. Recommendations for the implementation of the instrument ...........................................19
6. Tables for measuring the Index of RTA in urban planning ......................................................21
7. Tables for measuring the Index of RTA in financial management and property ................................................................................................................24
8. Tables for measuring the Index of RTA in public procurement ............................................27
5
INTRODUCTION
Corruption has been identified in the development literature as a very important obstacle for democracy, equitable economic growth and development as well as societal trust in institutions. The widely shared vision of joining the European Union further underlines this priority among candidate countries in the western Balkans, as anti-corruption measures are a fundamental pre-requisite in the EU pre-accession process. Although it is widely recognized as a problem to be tackled, one of the shortcomings in the fight against corruption is the lack of precise tools to identify the potential sources of corruption in the institutions.
The existing tools for measurement of the corruption mostly rely on a subjective approach, that is, the perception that citizens, businesspeople or the experts have. This subjective element is an important caveat in the methodology as perceptions may vary even when there is not a objective change in the actual corruption level (exposure in the media, rumors, political bias, prejudices, etc..). This is not to say that current methodologies do not have its role to play, as the worldwide acknowl-edged Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International shows.
Having this in mind, a methodology for measurement of the level of responsibility, transparency and accountability in the local government has been developed in the framework of the United Na-tions Development Programme’s Good Governance & Decentralization programmatic interventions. The aim of this methodology is to make measurable assessments of the exposure and ability of a given institution in face of actual or potential corruption, by identifying quantifying the most vulner-able points to corruption. At the same time, the methodology provides mechanisms on how to address these vulnerabilities.
This methodology and its implementation tool – the instrument for assessment of the Index of responsibility, transparency and accountability are designed to be clear, simple and practical for use. It covers three areas: public procurement, urban planning and financial management in the local government. It can be used as a mechanism for self-evaluation by the local government or identifica-tion and monitoring by independent agencies. It is designed to be used in the local administration but its approach is also very suitable for implementation in the institutions of the central government, too.
Although originally developed for its use in municipalities, the methodology has been de-signed since in its inception as a universal instrument that, with adjustments to the specific local context, can be used all around the world, both in developed and developing countries. Thus enabling the possibility of using a common standard tool that can allow for comparative analysis. The meth-odology has been implemented with success as part of a pilot project in the municipalities of Tetovo, Veles, Bitola and Gevgelija and it is expected to be scaled up shortly through a wider second phase.
The use of this anticorruption tool will significantly contribute to the fight against corruption, disclosure of the factors that contribute to its occurrence, especially in the defining of measures for its prevention. The results from the implementation of the methodology and the instrument will be very useful for increasing of accountability, responsibility and transparency of the local government, which will enable the strengthening of the institutional frameworks and facilitate both the achieve-ment of the Millennium Developments Goals and equitable development through improved gover-nance and better public services.
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
6
Finally, we would like to thank everyone who provided their support, efforts and contribution in the development of the methodology and the Instrument - the engaged experts, State Commission for Prevention of Corruption, the Association of Local Self-government Units, the Ministry of Local Self-government, State Audit Office, Public Procurements Bureau, Agency for Civil Servants, the May-ors, experts, practitioners, NGOs and everyone else who actively participated in the process of devel-opment of this instrument.
7
NEED fOr THE METHODOLOGY fOr MEaSuriNG THE iNDEx Of rESpONSibiLiTY, TraNSparENCY aND aCCOuNTabiLiTY aT LOCaL LEvEL
Many countries in transition around the world are faced with an image of highly corrupted societ-ies, which in turn produces serious critics from the domestic public and constant demands from the international community for more tangible results in the fight against corruption. They are trying to respond these demands with more or less efficient fight against corruption, but the progress is still not as obvious as domestic and international public opinion expects it to be. There are many reasons for the lack of success, which may vary from country to country, but one of the common denomina-tors for all of them is the absence of a clear picture of the level of corruption. Although the areas and forms of corruption seem to be quite well known, there is an issue when it comes to the point of measuring it in a precise and undisputable way. Sufficient knowledge and skills for detecting, measur-ing, preventing and curbing corruption are not yet developed neither at the level of central nor, es-pecially, at the local government.
Most of the transition countries are in a more or less intensive process of decentralization and improvement of governance at the local level. The process of transfer of competences from central to local level institutions is consuming most of the capacity of the local administration. Many mu-nicipalities are still not capable of developing mechanisms for preventing the possibilities for corrup-tion, which come with the increased competencies in the scope of public procurement, finance management and urban planning. Without well-designed and tested tools for corruption detection and prevention, there is a possibility for the corruption to be ‘transferred’ from one (central govern-ment) to many more entities (local government units).
In these conditions, it is more than obvious that there is a need for the creation of a tool that mea-sures the possibilities for corruption in the local government units. This Methodology and Instrument will contribute significantly in the clarification of the level of corruption, potential corruption prac-tices as well as to the implementation of anti-corruption measures.
prEviOuS ExpEriENCES iN COrrupTiON MEaSuriNG TOOLS aND wEakNESSES
There is no extensive experience in measuring the corruption at local level in transition countries, since there is no instrument customized to the specifics of the countries. The existing international tools applied in transitional countries are not adjusted enough to measure the corruption on the lo-cal level and, therefore, they cannot reflect the real level of corruption. The tools, developed over the last ten years of serious anti-corruption work, that are most widely implemented around the globe are:
Perception Surveys are built on public perceptions of incidents and levels of corruption. These include: Household Surveys that examine the citizens view of the corruption; Enterprise Survey – study the business environment, with a special emphasis on the effects of public sector governance and corruption of private sector development; and Public Officials Survey – The purpose of this survey is to understand institution-specific determinants of corruption (including bribery, nepotism, political interference, embezzlement, etc), discretion/informality, performance, and governance.
Aggregate Surveys or Indicators are simply a survey of surveys that evaluate various indi-vidual surveys and attempts to weight the results and give an overall score. The Transparency Inter-national Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is an example of this.
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
8
Focused Group Discussions
These qualitative diagnostics focus on identifying the public concept of corruption and the forms and mechanisms that it may have.
Report Cards
A particular methodology pioneered by the Public Affairs Centre of Bangalore, is the use of “report cards” on public services. These involve interviewing the “customers” of various public utilities to ascertain what in the way of “extras” they have been required to pay in order to get their legitimate services. The resulting “report cards” are then discussed with managers responsible for the various services and published in the press and on radio. Various NGOs around the world are being trained in Bangalore to use this approach, including members from a number of TI national chapters.
Expenditure Tracking/Social Audits
Expenditure tracking surveys and social audits are tools that are used to reveal system leakages in public finances. Expenditure tracking surveys compare the allotted sums to specific public ser-vices and measure these figures against their actual accountable usage, whereas social audits measure the delivery of public services based on household surveys against actual budgeted amounts for those services.
National Integrity System Assessments/Surveys
Using the concept of the National Integrity System (NIS) developed by Transparency Interna-tional, with the tool that examines the strengths of different institutions involved in preventing cor-ruption (the integrity “pillars“) evaluated through the use of series of questions posed to a group of experts.
Indicator Based Governance Assessments
Similar to the NIS assessments, these studies look at the individual institutions through posing of a number of questions that evaluate the strength of the institution in relation to corruption. The recent released second phase of Global Integrity Report is a good example of this type of survey as is the Country Assessment in Accountability and Transparency (CONTACT) a self-assessment handbook on financial accountability developed by the UNDP.
To use a widely recognized methodology, country ranking at the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency International, almost all of the countries in transition were ranked at second half of the list, while most of them occupied the last third part of it. That image and position repeatedly created disagreement among the political structures in power in the moment of the presentation of the CPI, questioning the correctness and accuracy of the methodology and the fact that it is based on a perception, not on tangible indicators.
Although numerous, these diagnostic tools have their shortcomings, confirming that the corruption is a difficult area to be measured due to the issues point out below: There are no accurate means to measure a phenomenon that involves two parties that are
both equally perpetrating malfeasance.
Criminal or judicial statistics are unreliable as an indicator due to the large number of corrupt acts that go undetected.
The most often used method of recording perceptions of corruption may or may not correlate to the realities of public sector corruption.
Perceptions of corruption are increased as the issue becomes more publicized
Expenditure tracking and other indicative surveys that show ‘leakages’ of public funds are effective indicators but are difficult to implement in a participatory manner and are readily used for political purposes.
9
Qualitative surveys are useful diagnostic tools but must be well formulated and facilitated to move beyond perceived corruption and revolve around discussions that have non-evidence based accusations of corruption.
In past international practice, sub/national diagnostics on corruption have consisted of perception type surveys of households, enterprises or social audits/service delivery surveys. Neither has proven effective in developing an evidence base for effecting change at the local level. Audits or public expenditure tracking that has been conducted has only addressed those formal misuses of resources (i.e. theft).
Within an examination of risks of corruption, there are three separate aspects of public finances to take into consideration:
Governance and institutional context within the country and sector that offer opportunities for corruption. This includes the general strengths and weakness of the institutions that can prevent corruption (i.e. national integrity studies) as well as the regulatory environment and policies/procedures of the targeted institutions.
Formal budget, expenditure and internal control systems. Key areas of corruption risk that are identified in formal risk assessments (i.e. audits, public expenditure tracking surveys) tend to focus on weaknesses in procurement, audit systems, oversight and accountability.
Real operational assessments that examine the informal systems that actually exist in the sector and country. That is, diagnosing the opportunities for corruption that are present but not necessarily exploited. This methodology looks into the informal aspects of a corrupt system that can occur without always violating the current policies and procedures and can escape detection by standard audits.
Lack of methodology and instrument for measuring the corruption adjusted to the local specifics, constant denials of the CPI from the governments with bad rankings as well as highly politicized anti-corruption debates are creating confusion among the public, which has no clear picture of the level of corruption in the country. Having in mind the decentralization and growing competencies of the local government, creation of the methodology and instrument for measuring the corruption at local level seems to be the most suitable solution for the needs of the countries in this scope.
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
10
CHaraCTEriSTiCS Of METHODOLOGY aND iNSTruMENT
Lack of experience in measuring corruption as well as negative experiences with the application of the international experiences clearly shows that it is the time and need for tailor-made Methodol-ogy and Instrument that addresses the needs of transition countries in this scope. In order to make sure that local authorities, political factors, media and public, would accept them as well as to be sustainable in a longer period, the Methodology and the Instrument have to be:
clear
simple and
impartial
More specific, abovementioned characteristics of the Methodology and the Instrument should be as follows:
Clearness of the methodology and the instrument
In order to avoid possible reluctance among the leadership of the local governments and politi-cal factor, the Methodology and the Instrument have to be clearly defined, well communicated with central and local institutions, as well as relevant stakeholders (civil society, media, etc...). They have to be easily understandable for the average officials and civil servants in the local government, as well as for the media; moreover, they have to contribute to the clarification of the corruption situation in the country and not to become a source of new political accusations on corruption basis.
The outcome of the Methodology is a clear and implementable Instrument as well as guidance on its implementation path with as much as possible accurate reflection of the level of corruption practices, corruption hot spots and anti-corruption mechanisms.
Simplicity of the instrument
Simplicity and user friendliness of the Methodology and the Instrument are of high importance for their acceptance by the stakeholders and their sustainability in a longer period. Hence, they are free of the need for complex research methods and techniques, as it is designed in a way that does not require highly specialized skills for their implementation. Although designed with ease to use and simplicity in mind, it is more convenient if they are implemented in the beginning by a spe-cifically trained professional implementation agency, before local government units start their self-evaluation.
In the beginning, the instrument should be implemented in close coordination and cooperation with the municipality authorities in order to achieve two important goals – to decrease to a mini-mum the possibilities for complains and to train the staff of the municipality for self-evaluation in future.
Impartiality of the instrument
Impartiality of the Instrument is of highest importance and will be a key for its acceptance by the leadership of the municipalities and the political factor by persuading them that the result would be objective reflection of the situation in the municipality. Therefore, the Methodology and the In-strument are designed in a way to be as much as possible free of complaints for biasness in their implementation or inclusion of personal opinion of the individuals in charge of that process. This attribute is closely related to their simplicity and clearness – all those characteristics should convince the stakeholders that the measuring of the corruption with the proposed Methodology and Instru-ment would be of their benefit.
11
Due to the previous comments and the lack of acceptance of the results of measuring corrup-tion on a basis of a perception, it is clear that measuring the level of corruption using the personal perceptions should not be used as a main research technique. Perception depends too much on the personal opinion of the interviewed individuals, their previous experience in communication or co-operation with the municipalities, their political affiliation and level of understanding the processes in the local government as well as other factors. Those factors are almost impossible to be predicted, calculated and correlated into measurable, comparable and accurate system of measuring the cor-ruption.
The Instrument designed on the base of this Methodology uses more tangible, measurable and objective criteria and indicators. Using that approach, it would be, for sure, far more acceptable, would last longer and would be much more useful for its purpose besides measuring corruption – to identify corruption hot spots and to contribute to the development and implementation of anti-corruption measures.
DESCripTiON Of THE METHODOLOGY aND THE iNSTruMENT
Corruption itself and especially tangible data on the level of corruption usually disturbs political actors and individuals that could be pointed as corrupted, and creates negative reactions to the in-stitution and individuals presenting those data. Having in mind sensitiveness of the anti-corruption situation in the transition countries, it would be very useful not to declare municipalities as corrupt-ed, but rather to take modified approach. Instead of measuring the level of corruption, the Method-ology and the Instrument are pragmatically oriented towards measuring the susceptibility, or even better - resistance to the corruption.
The most suitable approach is to base the Instrument on risk assessment of the susceptibility of the local government to corruption, assuming that the level of actual corruption is directly cor-related with the level of susceptibility to it. In that case, level of susceptibility of corruption could be taken as level of corruption vulnerability of the local government and up to certain point (if there are no proper protective mechanisms in place) as a level of expected actual corruption.
The most important elements of resistance to corruption of every institution are responsibility, transparency and accountability – therefore the Methodology and the Instrument are designed in the way to measure their level in the respective municipalities. Hence, the result of the implemen-tation of the Methodology and the Instrument is the Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Ac-countability (RTA), which shows the level of the resistance to corruption of the respective municipali-ties.
The positivistic approach would decrease to a large extent possible reluctance of the stakehold-ers to implement the instrument and would increase the possibility for design and implementation of anti-corruption measures in the municipalities.
Concerning the expertise of existing instruments for measuring the corruption at global level one cannot expect that proposed Methodology and Instrument for measuring RTA at local level could be completely different. The best effects and high accuracy could be achieved by combined and upgraded use of already existing methodologies and instruments for measuring the corruption, advancing them and adjusting them to the specifics of the transitional local governments.
Closest to the need for measuring the level of responsibility, transparency and accountability in local government in transitional countries and used as a base for this Methodology and Instrument are:
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
12
Corruption Risk Assessment based on the National Integrity System (NIS) of Transparency International (TI) and
Indicator Based Governance Assessments, based on Country Assessment in Accountability and Transparency (CONTACT) of UNDP.
Added methodological value of the proposed instrument is - introducing the assessment of the corruption resistance capacity of the municipality as an indicator of its capability to defend itself against the corruption.
Combining those upgraded approaches of UNDP and TI would base measuring corruption in the municipalities on more tangible, measurable, comparable and as much as possible – accurate data compared with the perception based instruments. Since the perceptions are still valuable source of data on the existence of the corruption, they cannot be excluded fully as a tool for measuring the corruption. Therefore, perceptions of the experts and users of the services of the municipalities are to be used as an important source in the process of adjusting the Instrument to the specifics of the countries where Methodology and Instrument will be used. In that case, the perceptions are not used as a tool to measure the corruption, but as an input in the design of the Instrument, which later on uses more tangible data to measure it.
The product of this methodological approach is the Instrument for measuring the level of Re-sponsibility, Transparency and Accountability (RTA) of the units of local government. Result of the implementation of the instrument would be creation of Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability (RTA Index). Basic methodological assumption for the design of the instrument and the RTA Index are the following:
corruption pressure is constantly present and there are no significant changes in its intensity and
the level of corruption is in inverse proportion with the existence and functioning of the anti-corruption mechanisms.
The Methodology is designed to be used in virtually any transition country, while the specific In-strument to be applied is to be designed for every country respectively, in order to include as much as possible the local specifics. The Methodology is a guideline for the creation of the tailor-made In-strument for measuring the level of RTA for the countries where it will be implemented and therefore the creation of the country-specific Instrument has to pass through the following phases:
Defining corruption hot-spots
Defining anti-corruption mechanisms versus corruption hot-spots
Defining indicators for the anti-corruption mechanisms
Quantification of the indicators
Setting up of the RTA Index
For easier understanding of the methodological approach of the creation of the Instrument, abovementioned phases in the afterward text are illustrated with examples of the development of the instrument through the pilot experiences in four municipalities. Examples are developed for the scope of public procurement and they shall illustrate the proposed structure of the instrument.
The final product after completion of those phases of the methodology is the instrument for measuring the level of RTA in the units of local government. Its implementation in respective munici-palities would generate a value of the Index, which is easy to compare and allows monitoring of the changes of their resistance to corruption.
13
Defining corruption hot-spots
The first step is to define the corruption hot spots, which are the specific activities and compe-tencies of the local government which are susceptible to corruption behavior, which are similar but enough diverse in the transitional countries. Corruption hot spots are to be defined in cooperation with local experts coming from the institutions and organizations, which are related to the local governance. Therefore, there is a need to conduct series of interviews with:The representatives of local self-government, like Mayors, Presidents of Municipal Councils, Chief of Administration, Central institutions in charge of tutelar activities, such as: Ministry of Local Government, State Audit Office, Ministry of Environmental Protection and Urban Planning, Ministry of Transport and Communica-tions, State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption,Bureau of public procurement etc; and users of the services of the municipalities like Citizens, Business community, Media, NGOs
Stakeholders will provide their perceptions and experience with corruption challenges that they have met with or have been informed about concerning units of local government. Points of interest are on the difficulties and obstacles that stakeholders have in the cooperation with the municipality related to:
direct corruption demands
slowness of the procedure
refusal of the requests
bottlenecks in the municipalities
stockpiling of the cases
nepotism and conflict of interest
number of complaints per municipality department
number of corruption related articles per municipal department etc.
Stakeholders will share their experience with these issues and their perceptions as well as their opinion about the level of the impact of the respective issues for the development of the corruption in the municipalities. Previous surveys on similar subjects are also very useful in the process of defin-ing corruption hot spots in the municipalities. Specific corruption hot spots, which are to be included in, the Instrument should be selected based on two main criteria:
frequency of their repetition in the answers of the stakeholders
level of their impact to the development of the corruption.
In order to make sure that the Instrument would be applicable widely in the local government in respective countries, one of the important steps in defining the hot spots is estimation whether they are valid for all municipalities throughout the country. If in the process of implementation some hot spots are less valid for some municipalities, depending whether they are urban or rural, big or small, with larger or smaller number of inhabitants, there is a possibility of developing different list of hot spots according to their specifics.
In the process of defining the specifics of the country regarding the character of the corruption hot spots, following steps are to be taken:
examine the laws and by-laws that regulate the competencies of the local government, within the scopes of:
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
14
urban planning
public procurement
financial management.
check convergence of the documents of the municipalities in order to determine whether there are differences that can influence creation and implementation of the methodology and the instrument
examine the organizational setup of the communities in order to check whether there are differences that can influence creation and implementation of the methodology and the instru-ment
examine municipal regulations in order to define specific corruption hot-spots in every re-spective abovementioned scopes
In the process of defining specific corruption hot spots, documents that regulate the following matters that are to be examined are as follows:
municipal regulations
administrative procedures
administrative capacity
forms of internal control
forms of external control
level of transparency.
Result of this phase is pointing out at least 10 to 15 most frequent corruption hot spots in the local government describing the opportunities for corrupt behavior, which are valid for majority of units of local government.
Example of a defined hot spot for the purpose of the illustration of the development of the instru-ment is the competitiveness of the bidding.
Defining anti-corruption mechanisms versus corruption hot-spots
After defining country specific corruption hot spots, next step is to define anticorruption mecha-nisms that can prevent appearance of the corruption practices for every respective hot spot specifi-cally. They are to be defined as antipodes to the corruption opportunity and projected in a way to be at a relatively high level of prevention of corrupt behavior. Anti-corruption mechanisms are to be defined in cooperation with the representatives of the institutions in charge of coordination and monitoring the work of the local self-governments, such as:
Ministry of local government,
Office of State Audit,
Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning,
Ministry of Transport and Communications,
State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption,
Bureau of public procurement etc.
Their experience of dealing with the corruption, misdemeanor and misuse of the office is to be
15
used to define as precise as possible anti-corruption mechanisms, which could prevent the corrup-tion to occur in the identified hot spots. Professionals from these institutions are to be asked to identify conditions and measures that would be enough effective prevention of the appearance of corruption in the local self-governmental units. Similarly, like with the selection of the corruption hot spots, the selection of the specific anti-corruption mechanisms that is to be included in the Instru-ment for measuring RTA is to be done on the basis of two main criteria:
frequency of their repetition in the answers of the stakeholders
level of their impact to the prevention of the corruption.
In that process, one should bear in mind that defining those mechanisms directly influences the level of resistance to corruption with two possible undesired outcomes that has to be avoided:
to set up too high level of expected anticorruption mechanisms, which:
would produce lower value of RTA Index since performances of the municipalities can not meet too high anti-corruption standards
would discourage municipalities to implement the methodology and the instrument
to set up too low level of expected anticorruption mechanisms which:
would create higher value of RTA Index since most of the municipalities would meet such a low anti-corruption standards
would not mirror the actual situation and anti-corruption capacity of the municipalities
It is recommendable that the most useful for the sustainability of the methodology and the instru-ment as well as for the acceptance of the RTA Index is to set up standards of expected anti-corruption mechanisms in a way that would enable most of the municipalities to be ranked with the RTA Index between 2 and 3. That would allow only a few best-organized municipalities to be ranked with the Index 4 and none with the 5 and 1.
For every respective corruption hot spots, at least 2 or 3 anticorruption mechanisms are to be defined in order to:
create a sufficient orienting points against which the level of the resistance to corruption would be measured and
to point the direction in which the anti-corruption efforts of the municipality should be de-veloped.
The result of this phase of the Methodology is a comprehensive list of anti-corruption mecha-nisms, which can efficiently prevent corruption for every corruption hot spot respectively. In order to make implementation easier and RTA Index more accurate there is a need to prepare a list of the documents where proof of their existence and condition could be traced down. It is recommend-able that the list of the documents is created during the definition of the corruption hot spots and anticorruption mechanisms.
For the purpose of illustration, defined anticorruption mechanisms that could prevent the cor-ruption in the hot-spot competitiveness of the bidding are:
- transparent advertising of the bid
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
16
- existence of clear criteria for selection
Defining indicators for the anti-corruption mechanisms
Once the list of anti-corruption mechanisms is completed, next step in the Methodology is to identify and to define indicators of the existence and proper functioning of those mechanisms. The Indicators are to be selected and defined in a way to meet the following criteria – to be:
indisputable, meaning that they definitely indicate whether the anti-corruption mecha-nism exists and functions proper enough to prevent corruption
simple for identification, not requiring high expertise but average intellectual and edu-cational level to be recognized
factual, meaning not to be based on perception of the individuals or institution in charge of implementation of the instrument
gradable, meaning the degree of their influence to the RTA Index have to be able to be categorized and measurable for its value
implementable in all municipalities (or at least in the group of municipalities) in order to make comparison of resistance to corruption among the municipalities.
Defining the indicators is also one of the key phases of the Methodology and to determine the effectiveness of the instrument. There are two possible undesired outcomes that are to be avoided:
defining too high number of indicators, which would aggravate implementation of the instrument and
defining too low number of indicators, which could jeopardize its accuracy and credibility.
Outcome of this phase of the Methodology is a list of at least one indicator per every respective anti-corruption mechanism, which are pointing out undeniably whether the mechanism exists, and functions in a proper way.
For the purpose of illustration, defined indicators for the existence of the anticorruption mecha-nisms - transparent advertising of the bid and existence clear of criteria for selection in the hot-spot competitiveness of the bidding are as follows:
- for transparent advertising of the bid
number of advertised bids
value of advertised bids
- for existence of clear criteria for selection
availability of the criteria before bidding
complaints on the criteria
Quantification of the indicators
Next, and without doubt a crucial step in the methodology, is the quantification of the indicators – setting up criteria for measuring the degree of the influence of the indicator to the level of the re-sistance to corruption for the respective anti-corruption mechanism. Those values of the indicators would have direct influence to the creation and the value of the RTA Index and, therefore, they have to be clearly defined in exact gradable way, which would not leave a room for the personal judg-ment of the individuals in charge of the implementation of the instrument. Every indicator has the value between 1 and to 5 depending of the specific weight of the anticorruption mechanism and its contribution to the prevention of the corruption.
17
For the purpose of illustration, quantification of the indicators would be done as follows: transparent advertising of the bid (anticorruption mechanism) number of advertised bids (indicator) o proportion between advertised bids and number of all the procurements value of advertised bids (indicator) o proportion between value of the advertised bids and value of all the procurements for existence of clear criteria for selection availability of the criteria before bidding (indicator) o proportion of the bids with publicly available criteria vs. all the procurements complaints on the criteria (indicator) o number of officially submitted complaints for criteria vs. all the procurements
Values of the Indicators are to be determined according to the previously defined criteria for quantification based on the specific weight of respective Indicators in prevention of the corruption. The criteria and the specific weight of the indicators are to be developed in the interaction with the representatives of major stakeholders at a workshop scheduled in the process of the design of the instrument.
Setting up of the RTA Index
In order to make the RTA Index easy to understand for the media and broad public, as well as for the comparableness of the progress of the respective municipality through the time and the compa-rableness among the municipalities in respective country, there is a need of creation of a single digit figure out of all quantifications of the indicators.
The Methodology and the Instrument are designed in a way that allows the creation of separate RTA Index for the respective areas of competences of the local government, so it can be created at two levels in every municipality:
separate RTA Index for the resistance to corruption in specific areas such as urban planning, public procurement, financial management etc.
overall RTA Index for the resistance to corruption of the whole municipality in the scope of all abovementioned areas
This two level approach allows determining the level of the resistance to corruption in every re-spective scope, which would be used by the municipality to define the possibilities for corruption, but also development and implementation of the preventive measures. This approach would allow also to follow the positive or negative trends in every respective area during the time that follows and to intervene in case of deterioration of the existence or proper functioning of anti-corruption mechanisms and the direction in which the municipality should invest more anti-corruption efforts.
The first level – RTA Index for the specific areas allows measuring and comparing the munici-pal resistance to corruption in its respective administrative departments and tracking the changes within them.
The second indicating level – RTA Index of the whole municipality would allow comparison of the level of the resistance to corruption among the municipalities in the country where the instrument is going to be implemented.
Both levels of the RTA Index are to be produced using the same formula - out of the proportion of scored points in quantification of the indicators and the maximum possible points of all indicators for the respective scope of work of the municipality, according to the following formula:
SNP : MNP x 100 = PP where:
• SNP is scored number of points, which is sum of all the points won by the respective municipality in the process of quantification of the indicators
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
18
• MNP is maximum possible number of points, which is the sum of all the maximal values of the quantification of the indicators
• PP is percentage points, which shows the percentage of points won by the respective municipality against the maximum number of points that could have been won.
Example:If a given municipality obtains 65 points (SNP) out of a maximum of 105 (MNP), the amount of percentage points would be (65 : 105) x 100= 61.9%
In order to simplify the Index and to make it easy to be understood and to be comparable, per-centage points are to be transferred into single digit figure, similar to the grades in the elementary or secondary schools. The choice of the single digit could be different which depends on the specifics of the respective country – from 1 to 5, from 5 to 1 or in some cases letters can be used - from E to A, where the former means higher susceptibility to corruption and latter means lower susceptibility to corruption. For illustration, here the process of transferring of the percentage of won points to the single digit from 1 to 5 is illustrated.
After the percentage points (PP) are calculated, they are converted in RTA Index points according to the following formula:
PP x 0.05 = RTA IP, where
• PP is percentage points and
• RTA IP is RTA index point
• value of 0.05 is portion of every percentage point in the maximum value of RTA Index of 5 (5 : 100 = 0.05)
Then, the transformation of the percentage points into a single digit figure are proceed according to the following values:
RTA Index 5 – for the average arithmetic value between 4,5 and 5
RTA Index 4 – for the average arithmetic value between 3,5 and 4,5
RTA Index 3 – for the average arithmetic value between 2,5 and 3,5
RTA Index 2 – for the average arithmetic value between 1,5 and 2,5
RTA Index 1 – for the average arithmetic value between 1 and 1,5
At the end of this phase, the result is values of the RTA Index would have a gradation of 1 to 5 with the following meaning:
RTA Index 5 – full responsibility, transparency and accountability
RTA Index 4 – high responsibility, transparency and accountability
RTA Index 3 – medium responsibility, transparency and accountability
RTA Index 2 – low responsibility, transparency and accountability
RTA Index 1 – absence of responsibility, transparency and accountability
Following the previous the example, the municipality obtain 61.9 Percentage Points, that is equivalent to 3.09 RTA Index Points (61.9 x 0.05= 3.09). Meaning that it would have a medium level of responsibility, transparency and accountability.
19
rECOMMENDaTiONS fOr THE iMpLEMENTaTiON Of THE iNSTruMENT The Methodology and the Instrument are designed in a way to be easy to implement, not to leave
an opportunity for an influence of the subjective factors and to guarantee uniform way in operating with it. Their implementability has already been tested in four municipalities (Tetovo, Veles, Bitola and Gevgelija) and had proved to be user-friendly both for the agency that applied it and for the municipalities themselves.
This was confirmed by the experts who were included in the implementation, municipalities and other stakeholders, representatives of local NGOs, which were trained for their implementation. This approach of informing and training all relevant local stakeholders for the implementation of the Methodology and the Instrument is recommendable for the sustainability of measuring the level of RTA. Once trained, municipalities, together with local stakeholders could implement the Instrument themselves performing regular self-evaluations.
Having in mind this experience and the similarities in the corruption issues in most of the transi-tional countries, one can expect that this methodological approach can be used for creation of coun-try specific Instrument for measuring level of RTA in a wider context - regional and international.
For easier and more accurate implementation of the instrument, specially designed tables are designed (attached) which reflects two levels of the development of the RTA Index:
first table would be used in the development of the instrument and
second would be used in the implementation of the instrument
In the first table, the instructions for the collection of the data needed to identify the indicators are listed, and it contains the following information:
Area for which RTA Index is formed
Corruption hot-spots
Anticorruption mechanisms
Defined indicators
In the process of defining the indicators, existing analyses like CONTACT or the assessment/map-ping of the municipal administrative procedures in urban planning or license issuing processes in the local administration have been used.
The second table content would be defined on the basis of the findings and conclusions of the abovementioned interviews, and would contain the following data on the indicators, which would be used in the creation of the RTA Index:
Name of the Indicator
Criteria for the quantification of the Indicator
Value of the RTA Index
The Instrument is designed in a way to be able to be implemented by various subjects, such as:
specifically trained professional agency
mixed team of the municipal stakeholders (NGOs, public officials, citizens, etc..) and
municipality itself as a tool for self-evaluation.
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
20
In order to avoid problems in the initial implementation of the instrument and not to jeopardize its capacity to improve anti corruption, it is highly recommendable in the first year to be imple-mented by a specifically trained agency. In the process of initial implementation, the team of the agency would include official and administrative staff of the municipality, which would allow them to familiarize with the Instrument and its implementation. Gained skills could be used for future self-evaluation as a base for more efficient municipal anti corruption activities.
Presentation of the results of the initial implementation in the public at local and national level is expected to produce high interest among the stakeholders and it could initiate their demands for participation in the future implementation of the instrument. Desirable outcome of the implementa-tion of the instrument would be participation of major relevant stakeholders in the evaluation of the resistance to corruption and the design of anticorruption mechanisms in the near future.
UNDP should not be perceived as an owner of the instrument or the process of its implementa-tion, but will have a facilitation role. The benchmarking would be based on internationally recog-nized good practice (e.g. principles for transparent procurement, disclosure of public information), and the method should focus on making sure that all relevant (local) stakeholders properly partici-pate in the assessment (local authorities, businesses, NGOs. With UNDP facilitation, local communi-ties could identify through a participatory process the main shortcomings of the local situation / practices compared to the reference benchmarks. UNDP's role would be to ensure the integrity of the process, not to produce its results.
21
DAT
A G
ATH
ERIN
G T
AB
LE –
UR
BA
N P
LAN
NIN
G
“Cri
tica
l Poi
nts”
of t
he c
orru
pti
on
Ant
icor
rup
tion
mec
hani
smIn
dic
ator
s
1D
evel
opm
ent,
adop
tion
and
chan
ges
of a
Gen
eral
Urb
an P
lan
(GU
P)
and
Det
aile
d U
rban
Pla
n (D
UP)
with
out t
he p
artic
ipat
ion
of a
pa
rtic
ipat
ive
body
Se
ttin
g up
a q
ualifi
ed P
artic
ipat
ive
body
and
its
dire
ct a
nd a
ctiv
e pa
rtic
ipat
ion
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t and
cha
ngin
g of
the
GU
P an
d D
UP
Min
utes
from
the
wor
k of
the
Part
icip
ativ
e bo
dy, n
umbe
r of n
egat
ive
opin
ions
of c
ompe
tent
inst
itutio
ns o
n pr
opos
ed v
ersi
ons
of G
UP
and
DU
P
2D
evel
opm
ent a
nd a
dopt
ion
of G
UP
and
DU
P w
ithou
t a p
ublic
deb
ate
and
an o
ppor
tuni
ty fo
r sug
gest
ions
by
inte
rest
ed p
artie
s Ti
mel
y pu
blic
atio
n an
d po
stin
g up
of G
UP
and
DU
P, o
btai
ning
a
posi
tive
opin
ion
from
com
pete
nt in
stitu
tions
Publ
ic in
vita
tion
for i
nsig
ht v
iew
into
and
com
men
ts o
n G
UP
and
DU
P, n
umbe
r of v
ersi
ons
annu
lled
by th
e co
urt c
ompe
tent
for
adm
inis
trat
ive
proc
edur
e
3Li
miti
ng th
e op
port
unity
for i
nsig
ht v
iew
into
the
adop
ted
GU
P an
d D
UP
by th
e in
tere
sted
inve
stor
s an
d th
eir u
nequ
al tr
eatm
ent
Unl
imite
d op
port
unity
for i
nsig
ht in
to th
e G
UP
and
DU
P fo
r in
tere
sted
inve
stor
s, ot
her e
ntiti
es a
nd c
itize
ns
Prop
ortio
n be
twee
n th
e nu
mbe
r of a
ppro
ved
and
the
num
ber o
f re
quire
d in
sigh
ts in
to th
e G
UP
and
DU
P, n
umbe
r of c
ompl
aint
s fo
r re
fuse
d in
sigh
t int
o th
e G
UP
and
DU
P
4Cr
eatio
n of
an
impr
essi
on o
f com
plex
ity o
f the
pro
cedu
re fo
r ob
tain
ing
a co
nstr
uctio
n pe
rmit,
to a
llow
pos
sibi
lity
to e
xtor
ting
brib
e A
ll in
tere
sted
par
ties
mus
t be
clea
rly a
nd p
reci
sely
info
rmed
with
the
cour
se a
nd d
urat
ion
of th
e pr
oced
ure
and
the
docu
men
ts re
quire
d Ex
iste
nce
of a
sys
tem
for i
nfor
min
g pa
rtie
s th
roug
h w
ritte
n no
tices
po
sted
up
or o
btai
nabl
e at
the
win
dow
s or
from
a c
lerk
5Ex
tend
ing
the
proc
edur
e fo
r iss
uing
lice
nses
, to
crea
te c
ondi
tions
for
exto
rtio
n of
brib
e fo
r acc
eler
atin
g th
e pr
oced
ure
Effici
ent a
naly
sis
of th
e re
ques
ts s
ubm
itted
and
brin
ging
the
num
ber
of c
onta
cts
with
the
part
y do
wn
to th
e m
inim
um re
quire
dA
n av
erag
e nu
mbe
r of a
ctio
ns u
nder
take
n in
act
ing
upon
the
requ
ests
for c
onst
ruct
ion
perm
its, fi
ndin
gs o
f the
adm
inis
trat
ive
insp
ectio
n
6Fa
vora
ble
trea
tmen
t in
the
calc
ulat
ion
and
colle
ctio
n of
the
fee
for
deve
lope
d co
nstr
uctio
n la
nd (c
omm
unal
taxe
s)
The
fee
for d
evel
oped
con
stru
ctio
n la
nd is
to b
e ca
lcul
ated
and
co
llect
ed e
qual
ly fo
r all
part
ies
requ
estin
g pe
rmits
, on
the
basi
s of
th
e m
unic
ipal
act
sN
umbe
r of d
evia
tions
from
the
defin
ed z
onin
g, a
mou
nt o
f fee
s an
d m
anne
r of p
aym
ent o
f fee
s fo
r dev
elop
ed c
onst
ruct
ion
land
7Is
suan
ce o
f con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmits
with
out t
he p
artic
ipat
ion
of a
ll co
mpe
tent
offi
cers
or m
anag
ers
in th
e pr
oced
ure
for i
ssua
nce
of
cons
truc
tion
perm
its
The
final
doc
umen
tatio
n fo
r iss
uanc
e of
eac
h in
divi
dual
per
mit
is to
be
sig
ned
(end
orse
d) b
y ea
ch o
ffice
r and
man
ager
who
took
par
t in
the
proc
edur
e
Exis
tenc
e of
a ru
lebo
ok d
efini
ng th
e ob
ligat
ion
for a
sig
natu
re
(end
orse
men
t) o
f eac
h of
the
part
icip
ants
in th
e pr
oced
ure
for
issu
ing
cons
truc
tion
perm
its
8N
o cl
ear a
nd m
anda
tory
div
isio
n of
the
com
pete
ncie
s in
the
mun
icip
al a
dmin
istr
atio
n in
the
proc
edur
e of
issu
ing
cons
truc
tion
perm
itsCl
ear a
nd m
anda
tory
div
isio
n of
the
com
pete
ncie
s in
the
mun
icip
al
adm
inis
trat
ion
in th
e pr
oced
ure
of is
suin
g co
nstr
uctio
n pe
rmits
Exis
tenc
e of
a b
y-la
w d
efini
ng th
e di
visi
on o
f com
pete
ncie
s in
the
proc
edur
e of
issu
ing
cons
truc
tion
perm
its
9Is
suan
ce o
f con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmits
that
are
not
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e G
UP
and
DU
P or
refu
sal o
f iss
uing
con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmits
des
pite
re
ques
ts in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
GU
P an
d D
UP
Cons
iste
nt a
nd m
axim
um re
spec
t for
the
DU
P an
d G
UP,
as
wel
l as
for
the
rule
s re
gula
ting
the
issu
ance
of c
onst
ruct
ion
perm
its
Num
ber o
f pos
itive
and
neg
ativ
e de
cisi
ons
on c
ompl
aint
s pa
ssed
by
the
mun
icip
ality
, sec
ond-
inst
ance
com
mitt
ees
or c
ompe
tent
cou
rts
10Co
nnec
tions
bet
wee
n th
e em
ploy
ees
in th
e ur
ban
plan
ning
de
part
men
t and
con
stru
ctio
n de
sign
com
pani
es a
nd fa
vore
d tr
eatm
ent o
f pro
ject
s an
d re
ques
ts s
ubm
itted
by
such
com
pani
esEq
ual t
reat
men
t of r
eque
sts
subm
itted
and
pro
ject
s de
velo
ped
by
any
com
pany
lice
nsed
for d
evel
opm
ent o
f con
stru
ctio
n pr
ojec
ts
Dis
prop
ortio
nal d
iffer
ence
in th
e av
erag
e nu
mbe
r of a
ctio
ns
unde
rtak
en in
act
ing
upon
the
requ
ests
dev
elop
ed b
y in
divi
dual
co
mpa
nies
11In
suffi
cien
t exp
ertis
e of
the
office
rs, w
hich
cau
ses
slow
ness
in th
e pr
oced
ure
and
poss
ibili
ty fo
r ext
ortio
n fr
om p
artie
s Re
gula
r inf
orm
ing
of o
ffice
rs, t
heir
cont
inuo
us tr
aini
ng a
nd
occa
sion
al c
heck
s of
thei
r kno
wle
dge
of th
e le
gisl
atio
n D
ata
on o
rgan
ized
trai
ning
s, se
min
ars,
a sy
stem
of d
istr
ibut
ion
of th
e ne
w re
gula
tions
to th
e offi
cers
and
che
cks
of th
eir e
xper
tise
12Fa
ilure
to c
ondu
ct m
onito
ring
or s
elec
tive
mon
itorin
g of
the
prog
ress
of c
onst
ruct
ion
wor
ks a
nd m
eetin
g th
e co
nditi
ons
for
cons
truc
tion
of b
uild
ings
for w
hich
a c
onst
ruct
ion
perm
it w
as is
sued
Cond
uct o
f req
uite
d in
spec
tions
on
the
cons
truc
tion
site
for e
ach
licen
se is
sued
and
writ
ing
dow
n m
inut
es fo
r eac
h of
thos
e in
spec
tions
Dis
prop
ortio
nate
diff
eren
ce in
the
num
ber o
f ins
pect
ions
con
duct
ed
in th
e ca
se o
f cer
tain
con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmits
issu
ed fo
r bui
ldin
gs o
f si
mila
r siz
e an
d ty
pe
13Fa
ilure
to a
ct o
r sel
ectiv
e ac
ting
upon
repo
rts
from
citi
zens
to th
e co
nstr
uctio
n in
spec
tion
in c
ase
of b
uild
ings
for w
hich
a li
cens
e ha
s be
en is
sued
In
spec
tions
aft
er e
ach
repo
rt s
ubm
itted
by
citiz
ens,
writ
ing
min
utes
of
eac
h in
spec
tion
and
notif
ying
the
part
y su
bmitt
ing
the
repo
rt
Num
ber o
f rep
orts
sub
mitt
ed, n
umbe
r of i
nspe
ctio
ns c
ondu
cted
, nu
mbe
r of m
inut
es c
ompo
sed
and
num
ber o
f not
ifica
tions
to th
e re
port
ing
part
ies
14Ca
usin
g de
lays
in th
e is
suan
ce o
r enf
orce
men
t of d
ecis
ions
for
corr
ectio
ns o
r dem
oliti
on o
f bui
ldin
gs th
at a
re n
ot b
uilt
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e is
sued
lice
nse
Each
bui
ldin
g ha
s to
be
built
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e co
nditi
ons
cont
aine
d in
the
licen
ses
and,
onc
e th
e ac
t bec
omes
fina
l, it
has
to b
e br
ough
t int
o co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith th
e co
nditi
ons
ther
ein
Num
ber o
f non
-enf
orce
d de
cisi
ons
for d
emol
ition
or c
orre
ctio
ns o
f th
e bu
ildin
g as
opp
osed
to th
e to
tal n
umbe
r of d
ecis
ions
for
dem
oliti
on o
r cor
rect
ions
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
22
IND
EX D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
TAB
LE –
UR
BA
N P
LAN
NIN
GIn
dic
ator
sQ
uant
ifica
tion
of i
ndic
ator
sV
alue
1M
inut
es fr
om th
e w
ork
of th
e Pa
rtic
ipat
ive
body
, num
ber o
f ne
gativ
e op
inio
ns o
f com
pete
nt in
stitu
tions
on
prop
osed
ve
rsio
ns o
f the
GU
P an
d D
UP
Ther
e ar
e m
inut
es c
onfir
min
g th
e ac
tive
part
icip
atio
n of
the
Part
icip
ativ
e bo
dy .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .3
poi
nts
Ther
e ar
e m
inut
es, n
o co
nfirm
atio
n of
act
ive
part
icip
atio
n of
the
Part
icip
ativ
e bo
dy . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .2
poin
tsTh
ere
are
no m
inut
es . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1 po
int
2Pu
blic
invi
tatio
n to
insi
ght i
nto
and
com
men
ts o
n G
UP
and
DU
P Th
ere
is a
pub
lic in
vita
tion
for i
nsig
ht in
to G
UP
and
DU
P, th
ere
are
requ
ests
for c
orre
ctio
n . .
. . . .
. . . .
3 po
ints
Ther
e is
a p
ublic
invi
tatio
n fo
r ins
ight
into
GU
P an
d D
UP,
no
requ
ests
for c
orre
ctio
n . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .2
poin
tsTh
ere
is n
o pu
blic
invi
tatio
n fo
r ins
ight
into
GU
P an
d D
UP
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .1
poin
t
2.1
Num
ber o
f ver
sion
s an
nulle
d by
the
cour
t com
pete
nt fo
r ad
min
istr
ativ
e pr
oced
ure
Ther
e ar
e no
ann
ulle
d ve
rsio
ns o
f GU
P an
d D
UP
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .3
poi
nts
A p
art o
f the
GU
P an
d D
UP
vers
ions
is a
nnul
led .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .2
poi
nts
A s
igni
fican
t par
t of t
he G
UP
and
DU
P ve
rsio
ns a
re a
nnul
led
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1 po
int
3Pr
opor
tion
betw
een
the
num
ber o
f app
rove
d an
d re
ques
ted
insi
ghts
into
the
GU
P an
d D
UP,
num
ber o
f com
plai
nts
on
refu
sals
to a
llow
insi
ght i
nto
the
GU
P an
d D
UP
All
requ
ests
for i
nsig
ht in
to th
e G
UP
and
DU
P ar
e ap
prov
ed . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .3
poin
tsA
big
ger p
art o
f the
requ
ests
for i
nsig
ht in
to th
e G
UP
and
DU
P ar
e ap
prov
ed . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.2 p
oint
sA
sm
alle
r par
t of t
he re
ques
ts fo
r ins
ight
into
the
GU
P an
d D
UP
are
appr
oved
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1 po
int
3.1
All
com
plai
nts
on a
llow
ing
insi
ght i
nto
the
GU
P an
d D
UP
are
posi
tivel
y re
solv
ed .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .3
poin
tsA
big
ger p
ortio
n of
the
com
plai
nts
are
posi
tivel
y re
solv
ed . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .2
poi
nts
A s
mal
ler p
ortio
n of
the
com
plai
nts
are
posi
tivel
y re
solv
ed .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1 po
int
4Ex
iste
nce
of a
sys
tem
of i
nfor
min
g th
e pa
rtie
s th
roug
h w
ritte
n no
tifica
tions
pos
ted
up o
r obt
aina
ble
at th
e w
indo
ws
or fr
om
the
cler
k
Info
rmat
ion
for t
he p
artie
s ar
e vi
sibl
y po
sted
or e
asily
obt
aina
ble
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .5
poin
tsIn
form
atio
n m
ay b
e re
ques
ted
upon
requ
est o
f the
par
ty . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
3 po
ints
No
syst
em o
f inf
orm
ing
the
part
ies .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1 po
int
5Av
erag
e nu
mbe
r of a
ctio
ns u
nder
take
n in
act
ing
upon
requ
ests
fo
r con
stru
ctio
n pe
rmits
, find
ings
of t
he a
dmin
istr
ativ
e in
spec
tion
No
case
s w
ith a
n un
nece
ssar
y la
rge
num
ber o
f act
ions
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.5 p
oint
sA
sm
alle
r por
tion
of th
e ca
ses
incl
ude
an u
nnec
essa
ry la
rge
num
ber o
f act
ions
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.3 p
oint
sA
big
ger p
ortio
n of
the
case
s in
clud
e an
unn
eces
sary
larg
e nu
mbe
r of a
ctio
ns .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.1 p
oint
5.1
Irreg
ular
ities
det
ecte
d by
the
cons
truc
tive
insp
ectio
nTh
e in
spec
tion
did
not d
etec
t irr
egul
ariti
es in
the
wor
k . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .5
poin
tsTh
e in
spec
tion
dete
cted
sm
all i
rreg
ular
ities
in th
e w
ork
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .3
poi
nts
The
insp
ectio
n de
tect
ed s
erio
us ir
regu
larit
ies
in th
e w
ork .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .1
poin
t
6N
umbe
r of d
evia
tions
from
the
defin
ed z
onin
g, a
mou
nt o
f fee
s an
d m
anne
r of p
aym
ent o
f fee
s fo
r dev
elop
ed c
onst
ruct
ion
land
No
obje
ctio
ns a
s to
the
fees
det
erm
ined
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .3
poi
nts
Ther
e ar
e ob
ject
ions
in a
n in
sign
ifica
nt n
umbe
r of c
ases
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .2
poi
nts
Ther
e ar
e ob
ject
ions
in a
sig
nific
ant n
umbe
r of c
ases
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1 po
int
7Ex
iste
nce
of a
rule
book
defi
ning
the
oblig
atio
n fo
r a s
igna
ture
(e
ndor
sem
ent)
of e
ach
of th
e pa
rtic
ipan
ts in
the
proc
edur
e fo
r is
suin
g co
nstr
uctio
n pe
rmits
Ther
e is
a ru
lebo
ok, a
ll pa
rtic
ipan
ts re
gula
rly s
ign .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.5 p
oint
sTh
ere
is a
rule
book
, the
par
ticip
ants
do
not s
ign
regu
larly
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .3
poin
tsTh
ere
is n
o ru
lebo
ok w
ith a
n ob
ligat
ion
of a
ll pa
rtic
ipan
ts to
sig
n . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.1 p
oint
8Ex
iste
nce
of a
by-
law
defi
ned
divi
sion
of c
ompe
tenc
ies
in th
e pr
oced
ure
of is
suin
g co
nstr
uctio
n pe
rmits
Ther
e is
a b
y-la
w, t
he c
ompe
tenc
ies
are
clea
rly d
ivid
ed .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .3
poi
nts
Ther
e is
a b
y-la
w, t
he c
ompe
tenc
ies
are
not c
lear
ly d
ivid
ed .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .2
poi
nts
Ther
e is
no
by-la
w o
n th
e di
visi
on o
f com
pete
nces
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .1
poin
t
9N
umbe
r of p
ositi
ve a
nd n
egat
ive
deci
sion
s on
com
plai
nts
pass
ed b
y th
e m
unic
ipal
ity, s
econ
d-in
stan
ce c
omm
ittee
s or
co
mpe
tent
cou
rts
No
proc
edur
e is
reso
lved
con
trar
y to
the
deci
sion
of t
he m
unic
ipal
ity .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.5 p
oint
sA
n in
sign
ifica
nt p
ortio
n of
the
proc
edur
es a
re re
solv
ed c
ontr
ary
to th
e m
unic
ipal
ity d
ecis
ion
. . . .
. . .3
poi
nts
A s
igni
fican
t por
tion
of th
e pr
oced
ures
is re
solv
ed c
ontr
ary
to th
e m
unic
ipal
ity d
ecis
ion
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.1 p
oint
10D
ispr
opor
tiona
l diff
eren
ce in
the
aver
age
num
ber o
f act
ions
un
dert
aken
in a
ctin
g up
on th
e re
ques
ts d
evel
oped
by
indi
vidu
al c
ompa
nies
The
aver
age
num
ber o
f act
ions
doe
s no
t dep
end
on th
e co
mpa
ny th
at d
esig
ned
the
proj
ect
. . . .
. . .3
poi
nts
Ther
e is
a s
mal
l diff
eren
ce in
the
num
ber o
f act
ions
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
2 po
ints
Th
e di
ffere
nce
in th
e nu
mbe
r of a
ctio
ns is
larg
e . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .1
poin
t
11D
ata
on o
rgan
ized
trai
ning
s, se
min
ars,
a sy
stem
of d
istr
ibut
ion
of th
e ne
w re
gula
tions
to th
e offi
cers
and
che
cks
of th
eir
expe
rtis
e
The
office
rs re
gula
rly a
tten
d tr
aini
ngs .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
3 po
ints
The
office
rs o
ccas
iona
lly a
tten
d tr
aini
ngs .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.2 p
oint
sTh
e offi
cers
do
not a
tten
d tr
aini
ngs
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1 po
int
11.1
The
office
rs re
gula
rly re
ceiv
e th
e ne
w re
gula
tions
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .3
poin
tsTh
e offi
cers
do
not r
egul
arly
rece
ive
the
new
regu
latio
ns .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.2 p
oint
sTh
e offi
cers
do
not r
ecei
ve th
e ne
w re
gula
tions
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.1 p
oint
23
11.2
Ther
e ar
e re
gula
r che
cks
of th
e kn
owle
dge
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
3 po
ints
The’
lre a
re o
ccas
iona
l che
cks
of th
e kn
owle
dge .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .2
poin
tsTh
ere
are
no c
heck
s of
the
know
ledg
e . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.1 p
oint
12D
ispr
opor
tiona
te d
iffer
ence
in th
e nu
mbe
r of i
nspe
ctio
ns
cond
ucte
d in
the
case
of c
erta
in c
onst
ruct
ion
perm
its is
sued
for
build
ings
of s
imila
r siz
e an
d ty
pe
Ther
e ar
e no
diff
eren
ces
in th
e nu
mbe
r of i
nspe
ctio
ns b
y bu
ildin
g . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .3
poi
nts
In a
sm
all n
umbe
r of c
ases
, the
re a
re d
iffer
ence
s in
the
num
ber o
f ins
pect
ions
by
build
ing .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. .2 p
oint
sTh
ere
are
big
num
ber o
f cas
es w
ith d
iffer
ence
s in
the
num
ber o
f ins
pect
ions
by
build
ing
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
1 po
int
13N
umbe
r of r
epor
ts s
ubm
itted
, num
ber o
f ins
pect
ions
con
duct
ed,
num
ber o
f min
utes
com
pose
d an
d nu
mbe
r of n
otifi
catio
ns to
the
repo
rtin
g pa
rtie
s
Insp
ectio
ns a
re c
ondu
cted
upo
n ea
ch re
port
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. .3 p
oint
sIn
spec
tions
are
con
duct
ed in
the
maj
ority
of r
epor
ted
case
s . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .2
poi
nts
Insp
ectio
ns a
re c
ondu
cted
in a
sm
alle
r num
ber o
f rep
orte
d ca
ses .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .1
poi
nt
13.1
Min
utes
are
com
pose
d af
ter e
ach
insp
ectio
n . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .3
poi
nts
Min
utes
are
com
pose
d on
the
maj
ority
of i
nspe
ctio
ns c
ondu
cted
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .2
poi
nts
Min
utes
are
com
pose
d on
a s
mal
l num
ber o
f ins
pect
ions
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .1
poin
t
13.2
Repo
rtin
g pa
rtie
s ar
e no
tified
in a
ll ca
ses .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .3
poin
tsRe
port
ing
part
ies
are
notifi
ed in
the
maj
ority
of c
ases
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .2
poin
tsRe
port
ing
part
ies
are
notifi
ed in
a s
mal
l num
ber o
f cas
es . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.1 p
oint
14N
umbe
r of n
on-e
nfor
ced
deci
sion
s fo
r dem
oliti
on o
r cor
rect
ions
of
the
build
ing
as o
ppos
ed to
the
tota
l num
ber o
f dec
isio
ns fo
r de
mol
ition
or c
orre
ctio
ns
All
deci
sion
s fo
r dem
oliti
on o
r cor
rect
ions
are
enf
orce
d w
ithin
the
dead
line
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.3 p
oint
sTh
e m
ajor
ity o
f dec
isio
ns a
re e
nfor
ced
with
in th
e de
adlin
e . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.2 p
oint
sA
sm
alle
r par
t of t
he d
ecis
ions
are
enf
orce
d w
ithin
the
dead
line
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.1 p
oint
15D
urat
ion
of is
suin
g bu
ildin
g lic
ence
s as
opp
osed
to th
e pe
riod
dete
rmin
ed b
y th
e La
w, w
hich
ena
bles
ext
ortin
g br
ibe
by th
e offi
cial
s in
the
mun
icip
al s
ecto
r for
urb
anis
m
The
larg
est p
art o
f the
requ
ests
wer
e no
t sol
ved
with
in th
e de
term
ined
tim
efra
me .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
1 po
int
Part
of t
he re
ques
ts w
ere
solv
ed w
ithin
the
dete
rmin
ed ti
mef
ram
e . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .2
poi
nts
The
grea
test
par
t of t
he re
ques
ts w
ere
solv
ed w
ithin
the
dete
rmin
ed ti
mef
ram
e . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.3 p
oint
s
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
24
DAT
A G
ATH
ERIN
G TA
BLE
– FI
NAN
CIAL
MAN
AGEM
ENT
AND
PRO
PERT
Y “C
ritic
al P
oint
s” o
f the
corr
uptio
n An
ticor
rupt
ion
mec
hani
smIn
dica
tors
1
Unre
alist
ic a
nd in
com
plet
e pl
anni
ng o
f the
type
s, am
ount
and
pa
ce o
f col
lect
ion
of th
e m
unic
ipal
char
ges a
nd in
com
eRe
alist
ic a
nd p
reci
se a
nnua
l, mid
-term
and
long
-term
pla
nnin
g of
co
llect
ion
of m
unic
ipal
taxe
s and
char
ges
Offi
cial
ann
ual, m
id-te
rm a
nd lo
ng-te
rm p
lan
for t
he a
mou
nt a
nd
pace
of c
olle
ctio
n of
mun
icip
al ch
arge
s and
inco
me
2In
com
plet
e an
d se
lect
ive
colle
ctio
n of
loca
l tax
es, c
harg
es a
nd
fees
for w
hich
the
mun
icip
ality
pas
ses a
cts f
or co
llect
ion
Non-
sele
ctiv
e an
d co
mpl
ete
colle
ctio
n of
all
loca
l tax
es, c
harg
es
and
fees
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e ac
ts is
sued
for t
hat p
urpo
seIn
stru
men
ts fo
r cal
cula
tion
and
non-
sele
ctiv
e co
llect
ion,
as w
ell
as fo
r the
rate
of c
olle
ctio
n of
pro
ject
ed ta
xes,
char
ges a
nd fe
es
3Re
aliz
atio
n of
inve
stm
ents
in th
e m
unic
ipal
ity w
ithou
t a p
lan
for
deve
lopm
ent a
nd p
ublic
inve
stm
ents
ado
pted
in a
tran
spar
ent
proc
edur
e
Tran
spar
ent d
evel
opm
ent a
nd a
dopt
ion
of a
pla
n fo
r inv
estm
ents
an
d de
velo
pmen
t of t
he m
unic
ipal
ity a
t a d
efine
d pa
ce a
nd w
ith
prio
ritie
s in
its im
plem
enta
tion
Offi
cial
ann
ual, m
id-te
rm a
nd lo
ng-te
rm fr
amew
ork
plan
for
deve
lopm
ent a
nd p
ublic
inve
stm
ents
of t
he m
unic
ipal
ity
4D
evel
opm
ent a
nd a
dopt
ion
of a
mun
icip
ality
bud
get w
hich
is n
ot
appr
opria
te to
the
inve
stm
ent p
lan
and
the
plan
ned
need
s of t
he
mun
icip
ality
Th
e m
unic
ipal
bud
get i
s in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith it
s ann
ual, m
id-te
rm
and
long
-term
dev
elop
men
t and
inve
stm
ent p
lan
Com
plia
nce
of th
e m
unic
ipal
bud
get w
ith th
e de
velo
pmen
t and
pu
blic
inve
stm
ents
pla
n of
the
mun
icip
ality
for t
he p
erio
d fo
r w
hich
the
budg
et is
pla
nned
and
ado
pted
5No
n-tra
nspa
rent
pro
cedu
re fo
r dev
elop
men
t and
ado
ptio
n of
the
mun
icip
al b
udge
t, w
ithou
t the
par
ticip
atio
n of
the
publ
ic a
nd
expe
rts
Part
icip
atio
n of
the
publ
ic a
nd e
xper
ts in
the
proc
ess o
f pla
nnin
g an
d de
velo
pmen
t of t
he m
unic
ipal
bud
get,
as w
ell a
s co
nsul
tatio
ns w
ith th
e pu
blic
and
exp
erts
Leve
l of p
artic
ipat
ion
of th
e pu
blic
and
exp
erts
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
he b
udge
t and
acc
ess t
o in
form
atio
n re
gard
ing
the
budg
et
6D
evel
opm
ent a
nd a
dopt
ion
of a
bud
get t
hat i
s not
clea
rly b
roke
n do
wn
by it
ems a
nd h
as n
o cl
early
defi
ned
resp
onsib
le p
artie
s and
in
divi
dual
s for
its e
nfor
cem
ent
Adop
tion
of a
bud
get w
ith cl
ear i
ndic
ator
s of t
he g
oals,
dire
ctio
n,
expe
cted
resu
lts a
nd p
artie
s and
indi
vidu
als r
espo
nsib
le fo
r its
en
forc
emen
t
The
budg
et co
ntai
ns cl
ear i
ndic
ator
s of t
he g
oals,
dire
ctio
ns,
expe
cted
resu
lts a
nd th
e pa
rtie
s and
indi
vidu
als r
espo
nsib
le fo
r its
enf
orce
men
t
7Sp
endi
ng a
bove
the
plan
ned
budg
et it
ems d
ue to
a la
ck o
f in
sight
into
its e
nfor
cem
ent
Intro
duct
ion
and
func
tioni
ng o
f a co
mpu
ter fi
nanc
ial s
yste
m fo
r sim
ulta
neou
s mon
itorin
g th
e de
gree
and
real
izat
ion
man
ner o
f th
e bu
dget
Exist
ence
of a
regu
late
d sy
stem
for m
onito
ring
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
budg
et, s
uppo
rted
by
a co
mpu
ter s
yste
m
for t
hat g
oal
8Fa
vorin
g cr
edito
rs d
urin
g th
e re
gula
r pay
men
ts o
f lia
bilit
ies b
y th
e m
unic
ipal
ity a
nd in
the
proc
ess o
f rep
aym
ent o
f inh
erite
d m
unic
ipal
deb
ts
Paym
ent w
hen
liabi
litie
s bec
ome
due
and
repa
ymen
t of o
ld
debt
s acc
ordi
ng to
a p
lan
that
incl
udes
a sc
hedu
le a
nd a
mou
nts
to b
e re
paid
Deg
ree
of re
gula
rity
in p
aym
ent a
gain
st li
abili
ties w
hen
they
be
com
e du
e an
d in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
plan
of r
epay
men
t of
debt
s to
cred
itors
9La
ck o
f or i
rregu
lar i
nter
nal a
nd e
xter
nal c
ontro
l ove
r the
fina
ncia
l op
erat
ions
of t
he m
unic
ipal
ity
Regu
lar c
ondu
ct o
f aud
its b
y th
e in
tern
al a
udit
of th
e m
unic
ipal
ity a
nd b
y th
e St
ate
Audi
t Offi
ce
Audi
ts co
nduc
ted,
find
ings
from
such
aud
its, r
ecom
men
datio
ns
and
degr
ee o
f res
pect
for a
nd a
ctin
g in
line
with
the
reco
mm
enda
tions
10Un
clea
r mai
nten
ance
of t
he fi
nanc
ial a
nd o
ther
reco
rds,
as a
n ob
stac
le to
qua
lity
inte
rnal
and
ext
erna
l con
trols
Exist
ence
and
pro
per f
unct
ioni
ng o
f rul
es fo
r the
man
ner o
f m
aint
aini
ng fi
nanc
ial a
nd o
ther
mun
icip
al re
cord
s Ex
isten
ce o
f act
s reg
ulat
ing
the
mai
nten
ance
of r
ecor
ds, fi
ndin
gs
and
reco
mm
enda
tions
of t
he a
udits
cond
ucte
d in
the
mun
icip
ality
11Re
bala
nce
of th
e bu
dget
to co
ver e
xpen
ses t
hat a
re n
ot in
ac
cord
ance
with
the
budg
et a
dopt
ed, p
artic
ular
ly in
the
area
of
inve
stm
ents
and
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ents
Budg
et re
bala
nce
with
acc
ompa
nyin
g ex
plan
atio
ns th
eret
o an
d a
reba
lanc
e in
line
with
the
plan
s for
inve
stm
ents
and
pub
lic
proc
urem
ents
Expl
anat
ion
for t
he re
ason
s beh
ind
and
goal
s of t
he re
bala
nce,
an
d a
reba
lanc
e w
ith th
e pl
ans f
or in
vest
men
ts a
nd p
ublic
pr
ocur
emen
ts co
ntai
ned
in th
e pr
opos
al fo
r reb
alan
ce
12D
ispro
port
iona
te g
aps b
etw
een
the
initi
ally
ado
pted
bud
get a
nd
the
actu
ally
use
d fu
nds i
n th
e ar
ea o
f pub
lic in
vest
men
ts a
nd
publ
ic p
rocu
rem
ent
The
time
and
amou
nt o
f inv
estm
ents
and
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ents
ar
e in
line
with
the
plan
s for
inve
stm
ents
and
pub
lic
proc
urem
ents
Leve
l of g
aps b
etw
een
the
plan
ned
item
s for
inve
stm
ents
and
pu
blic
pro
cure
men
ts a
nd fu
nds s
pent
for t
hat p
urpo
se
13Re
ntin
g an
d di
spos
ing
of m
unic
ipal
pro
pert
y w
ithou
t crit
eria
, pr
ice
lists
and
pub
lic in
vita
tions
Th
e m
unic
ipal
pro
pert
y is
rent
ed o
ut a
nd so
ld so
lely
on
the
basis
of
act
s and
pric
e lis
ts o
f the
mun
icip
ality
Exist
ence
of a
nd d
egre
e of
resp
ect f
or a
cts o
n th
e ba
sis o
f whi
ch
the
mun
icip
al p
rope
rty
is re
nted
and
sold
14Tr
ends
of a
buse
of m
unic
ipal
pro
pert
y of
whi
ch n
o in
vent
ory
is m
ade
or w
hose
val
ue o
r lev
el o
f dep
reci
atio
n ar
e no
t eva
luat
ed
Inve
ntor
y is
regu
larly
mad
e of
the
entir
e m
unic
ipal
pro
pert
y, w
ith
a de
taile
d de
scrip
tion
of it
s con
ditio
n, le
vel a
nd it
ems o
f de
prec
iatio
nEx
isten
ce o
f act
s and
a p
rope
rty
inve
ntor
y co
mm
ittee
, reg
ular
ity
in in
vent
ory
taki
ng a
nd co
nduc
t of e
xter
nal c
ontro
ls
25
IND
EX D
EVEL
OPM
ENT T
ABLE
– FI
NAN
CIAL
MAN
AGEM
ENT
AND
PRO
PERT
YIn
dica
tors
Qua
ntifi
catio
n of
indi
cato
rsVa
lue
1O
fficia
l ann
ual, m
id-te
rm a
nd lo
ng-te
rm p
lan
on th
e am
ount
an
d sc
hedu
le o
f col
lect
ion
of m
unici
pal c
harg
es a
nd re
venu
esTh
ere
are
an a
nnua
l and
seve
ral-y
ear p
lan
for c
olle
ctio
n of
mun
icipa
l rev
enue
s . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .3 p
oint
sTh
ere
is on
ly a
n an
nual
pla
n fo
r col
lect
ion
of m
unici
pal r
even
ues .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .2 p
oint
sTh
ere
are
no p
lans
for c
olle
ctio
n of
mun
icipa
l rev
enue
s . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .1
poin
t
1.1
Ther
e is
a pl
an a
nd it
cont
ains
all t
he e
lem
ents
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .3 p
oint
sTh
ere
is a
plan
, but
it d
oes n
ot co
ntai
n al
l the
ele
men
ts . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .2
poi
nts
Ther
e is
no p
lan
for c
olle
ctio
n of
the
mun
icipa
l rev
enue
s . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.1 p
oint
2In
stru
men
ts fo
r cal
cula
tion
and
non-
sele
ctiv
e co
llect
ion,
as w
ell
as a
rate
of c
olle
ctio
n of
the
proj
ecte
d ta
xes,
char
ges a
nd fe
es
Ther
e ar
e in
stru
men
ts fo
r eac
h in
divi
dual
reve
nue .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.5 p
oint
sTh
ere
are
inst
rum
ents
for a
por
tion
of th
e re
venu
es . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .3
poin
tsTh
ere
are
no in
stru
men
ts . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .1
poin
t
3O
fficia
l ann
ual, m
ind-
term
and
long
-term
fram
ewor
k pla
n fo
r de
velo
pmen
t and
pub
lic in
vest
men
ts o
f the
mun
icipa
lity
Ther
e ar
e an
ann
ual a
nd m
ulti-
annu
al in
vest
men
t pla
ns . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .3 p
oint
sTh
ere
is on
ly a
n an
nual
inve
stm
ents
pla
n . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .2
poi
nts
Ther
e ar
e no
inve
stm
ent p
lans
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .1 p
oint
4Ha
rmon
ized
mun
icipa
l bud
get w
ith th
e de
velo
pmen
t and
pu
blic
inve
stm
ents
pla
n of
the
mun
icipa
lity f
or th
e pe
riod
for
whi
ch th
e bu
dget
is d
evel
oped
and
ado
pted
The
budg
et is
in fu
ll acc
orda
nce
with
the
inve
stm
ent p
lan
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .3 p
oint
sTh
e bu
dget
is m
ostly
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e in
vest
men
t pla
n . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .2
poi
nts
The
budg
et is
not
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e in
vest
men
t pla
n . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .1
poi
nt
5De
gree
of p
artic
ipat
ion
of th
e pu
blic
and
the
expe
rts in
bud
get
prep
arat
ion
and
acce
ss to
info
rmat
ion
rega
rdin
g th
e bu
dget
The
budg
et p
repa
ratio
n is
publ
icize
d, th
ere
is pa
rticip
atio
n of
the
publ
ic . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.3 p
oint
sTh
e bu
dget
pre
para
tion
is pu
blici
zed,
ther
e is
no p
artic
ipat
ion
of th
e pu
blic
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .2
poi
nts
The
budg
et p
repa
ratio
n is
not p
ublic
ized
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .1
poi
nt
6Th
e bu
dget
cont
ains
clea
r ind
icato
rs o
f the
goa
ls, d
irect
ions
, ex
pect
ed re
sults
and
par
ties r
espo
nsib
le fo
r its
enf
orce
men
t Th
e bu
dget
cont
ains
all i
ndica
tors
of g
oals,
resu
lts, p
artie
s and
resp
onsib
ility
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .3
poi
nts
The
budg
et co
ntai
ns in
dica
tors
for a
por
tion
of th
e st
ated
ele
men
ts . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .2 p
oint
sTh
e bu
dget
doe
s not
cont
ain
indi
cato
rs o
f the
stat
ed e
lem
ents
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .1 p
oint
7Ex
isten
ce o
f a re
gula
ted
syst
em fo
r mon
itorin
g th
e bu
dget
im
plem
enta
tion,
supp
orte
d by
a co
mpu
ter s
yste
m fo
r tha
t pu
rpos
e
The
syst
em e
xist
s and
is re
gula
rly u
sed
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
5 po
ints
The
syst
em d
oes e
xist
, but
it is
not
use
d re
gula
rly . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
3 po
ints
No sy
stem
exi
sts f
or m
onito
ring
the
budg
et im
plem
enta
tion .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .1
poi
nt
8De
gree
of r
egul
arity
in p
aym
ent a
gain
st lia
bilit
ies w
hen
they
be
com
e du
e an
d in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
plan
of r
epay
men
t of
debt
s to
cred
itors
Paym
ents
are
carri
ed o
ut re
gula
rly, a
s lia
bilit
ies b
ecom
e du
e . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
3 po
ints
Paym
ents
are
mos
tly ca
rried
out
as l
iabi
litie
s bec
ome
due .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .2 p
oint
sPa
ymen
ts a
re n
ot ca
rried
out
as l
iabi
litie
s bec
ome
due .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .1 p
oint
9Co
nduc
ted
audi
ts, fi
ndin
gs fr
om su
ch a
udits
, rec
omm
enda
tions
an
d le
vel o
f act
ions
und
erta
ken
in lin
e w
ith th
e re
com
men
datio
ns
Ther
e is
an in
tern
al a
udit
and
it re
gula
rly co
nduc
ts a
udits
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .3
poin
tsTh
ere
is an
inte
rnal
aud
it an
d it
cond
ucts
aud
its o
ccas
iona
lly . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.2 p
oint
sTh
ere
is no
inte
rnal
aud
it in
the
mun
icipa
lity .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .1
poi
nt
9.1
The
findi
ngs o
f the
inte
rnal
aud
it ar
e po
sitiv
e . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .3
poi
nts
The
findi
ngs o
f the
inte
rnal
aud
it co
ntai
n no
opi
nion
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .2
poi
nts
The
findi
ngs o
f the
inte
rnal
aud
it ar
e ne
gativ
e . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .1
poi
nt
9.2
The
findi
ngs o
f the
inte
rnal
aud
it ar
e po
sitiv
e . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .5
poi
nts
The
findi
ngs o
f the
inte
rnal
aud
it co
ntai
n no
opi
nion
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .2
poi
nts
The
findi
ngs o
f the
inte
rnal
aud
it ar
e ne
gativ
e . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .1
poi
nt
9.3
The
mun
icipa
lity h
as a
cted
in lin
e w
ith a
ll the
reco
mm
enda
tions
of t
he a
udito
rs . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .5 p
oint
sTh
e m
unici
palit
y has
act
ed in
line
with
mos
t of t
he re
com
men
datio
ns . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .3
poi
nts
The
mun
icipa
lity h
as n
ot a
cted
at a
ll or h
as a
cted
in lin
e w
ith so
me
of th
e re
com
men
datio
ns . . . .
. . . .1
poin
t
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
26
10Ex
iste
nce
of a
cts
regu
latin
g th
e m
aint
enan
ce o
f rec
ords
, fin
ding
s an
d re
com
men
datio
ns o
f the
aud
its c
ondu
cted
in th
e m
unic
ipal
ity
Ther
e ar
e ac
ts, r
ecor
ds a
re k
ept i
n lin
e w
ith th
ose
acts
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
3 po
ints
Ther
e ar
e ac
ts, r
ecor
ds a
re n
ot k
ept e
ntire
ly in
line
with
them
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .2
poin
tsTh
ere
are
no a
cts
regu
latin
g th
e re
cord
kee
ping
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. .1 p
oint
11Ex
plan
atio
n fo
r the
reas
ons
and
goal
s of
the
reba
lanc
e ar
e br
ough
t in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e pl
an fo
r pub
lic in
vest
men
ts a
nd
proc
urem
ents
as
cont
aine
d in
the
prop
osed
reba
lanc
e
Ther
e is
an
expl
anat
ion,
bas
ed o
n th
e in
vest
men
t and
pro
cure
men
t pla
n . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
3 po
ints
Th
ere
is a
n ex
plan
atio
n, b
ut is
not
bas
ed o
n th
e in
vest
men
t and
pro
cure
men
t pla
n . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .2
poi
nts
Ther
e is
no
expl
anat
ion
for t
he re
bala
nce
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .1
poin
t
12Le
vel o
f gap
bet
wee
n th
e pl
anne
d ite
ms
for i
nves
tmen
ts a
nd
publ
ic p
rocu
rem
ents
as
wel
l as
the
fund
s sp
ent f
or th
at p
urpo
se
Ther
e is
an
insi
gnifi
cant
gap
bet
wee
n th
e pl
anne
d an
d sp
ent f
unds
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .3
poin
ts
Ther
e is
a s
igni
fican
t diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
plan
ned
and
spen
t fun
ds . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.1 p
oint
13Ex
iste
nce
of a
nd c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith th
e ac
ts o
n th
e ba
sis
of w
hich
th
e m
unic
ipal
pro
pert
y is
rent
ed o
ut a
nd s
old
The
mun
icip
ality
has
act
s re
gula
ting
in d
etai
l the
rent
ing
and
selli
ng o
f pro
pert
y . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. .3 p
oint
sTh
e m
unic
ipal
ity h
as a
cts
part
ially
regu
latin
g th
e re
ntin
g an
d se
lling
of p
rope
rty .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .2
poi
nts
The
mun
icip
ality
has
no
acts
regu
latin
g th
e re
ntin
g an
d se
lling
of p
rope
rty .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
1 po
int
13.1
Prop
erty
is a
lway
s re
nted
out
and
sol
d up
on a
pub
lic in
vita
tion
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .5
poi
nts
Prop
erty
is in
mos
t cas
es re
nted
out
and
sol
d up
on a
pub
lic in
vita
tion
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .3
poin
ts
Prop
erty
is re
nted
out
and
sol
d w
ithou
t a p
ublic
invi
tatio
n . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.1 p
oint
14Ex
iste
nce
of a
cts
and
prop
erty
inve
ntor
y co
mm
ittee
, reg
ular
ity
in ta
king
inve
ntor
y an
d co
nduc
t ext
erna
l con
trol
s Th
ere
are
no a
cts
and
com
mitt
ee, i
nven
tory
take
n re
gula
rly . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .3
poin
tsTh
ere
are
no a
cts
and
com
mitt
ee, i
nven
tory
not
take
n re
gula
rly . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.2 p
oint
sTh
ere
are
no a
cts
and
com
mitt
ee, i
nven
tory
not
take
n . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .1
poi
nt
27
DAT
A G
ATH
ERIN
G TA
BLE
– PU
BLIC
PRO
CURE
MEN
T“C
ritic
al P
oint
s” o
f the
corr
uptio
n An
ticor
rupt
ion
mec
hani
smIn
dica
tors
1Pl
anni
ng a
nd re
aliza
tion
of p
ublic
pro
cure
men
ts th
at a
re n
ot in
ac
cord
ance
with
the
budg
et a
nd th
e m
unic
ipal
ity d
evel
opm
ent
plan
All p
ublic
pro
cure
men
ts o
f the
mun
icip
ality
is to
be
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith it
s bud
get a
nd d
evel
opm
ent p
lan
Exist
ence
and
leve
l of r
espe
ct fo
r the
ann
ual p
ublic
pro
cure
men
t pl
an, w
hich
is in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
budg
et a
nd th
e m
unic
ipal
ity
deve
lopm
ent p
lan
2Th
e m
unic
ipal
ity h
as fa
iled
to su
bmit
the
annu
al p
ublic
pr
ocur
emen
t pla
n to
the
Publ
ic P
rocu
rem
ent O
ffice
Th
e an
nual
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ent p
lan
is to
be
subm
itted
with
the
Publ
ic P
rocu
rem
ent O
ffice
The
annu
al p
ublic
pro
cure
men
t pla
n is
rece
ived
by
the
Publ
ic
Proc
urem
ent O
ffice
3Di
visio
n of
larg
er p
rocu
rem
ents
into
smal
ler p
arts
, to
avoi
d th
e ob
ligat
ion
of o
rgan
izing
a p
ublic
tend
er
Proc
urem
ents
of t
he sa
me
type
ove
r the
yea
r are
to b
e ca
rried
out
as
a b
ulk,
thro
ugh
a pu
blic
tend
erIm
plem
enta
tion
of p
roce
dure
s for
smal
l val
ue p
rocu
rem
ent o
f the
sa
me
type
of g
oods
and
serv
ices
in th
e co
urse
of o
ne y
ear
4De
finin
g th
e te
chni
cal s
peci
ficat
ion
of th
e go
ods a
nd se
rvic
es in
a
way
that
favo
rs a
cert
ain
supp
lier
Deta
iled
tech
nica
l spe
cific
atio
n of
the
good
s or s
ervi
ces i
s defi
ned
clea
rly a
nd is
an
inte
gral
par
t of t
he te
nder
doc
umen
tatio
n,
with
out s
peci
fyin
g a
spec
ific t
rade
nam
e or
bra
nd
Exist
ence
of a
pre
cise
tech
nica
l spe
cific
atio
n of
the
good
s and
se
rvic
es in
the
tend
er d
ocum
enta
tion,
doc
umen
tatio
n th
at st
ated
th
e tra
de n
ame
or b
rand
5De
finin
g th
e cr
iteria
for a
war
ding
poi
nts i
n a
way
that
favo
rs a
ce
rtai
n su
pplie
rTh
e ev
alua
tion
crite
ria co
ntai
n bo
th d
etai
led
and
clea
r sub
-crit
eria
fo
r the
way
in w
hich
poi
nts a
re a
war
ded
to th
e bi
ds
Exist
ence
of p
reci
se cr
iteria
for e
valu
atio
n an
d su
b-cr
iteria
for
awar
ding
poi
nts t
o th
e bi
ds
6Im
plem
enta
tion
of a
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ent w
ithou
t pre
viou
s re
sear
ch o
f the
mar
ket,
pric
es a
nd fe
atur
es o
f the
goo
ds a
nd
serv
ices
to b
e pr
ocur
ed
The
prev
ious
mar
ket r
esea
rch
prov
ides
orie
ntat
ion
as to
the
pric
e an
d fe
atur
es o
f the
goo
ds a
nd se
rvic
es, w
hich
is o
f ass
istan
ce in
th
e de
cisio
n-m
akin
g pr
oces
s
Exist
ence
of d
ata
on p
revi
ously
cond
ucte
d m
arke
t res
earc
h in
te
rms o
f the
pric
es a
nd q
ualit
y of
the
good
s and
serv
ices
to b
e pr
ocur
ed
7Im
plem
enta
tion
of p
ublic
pro
cure
men
ts u
pon
a ne
gotia
tion
proc
edur
e, w
ithou
t not
ifyin
g th
e Pu
blic
Pro
cure
men
t Offi
ce a
nd
obta
inin
g its
cons
ent
The
publ
ic p
rocu
rem
ents
upo
n a
nego
tiatio
n pr
oced
ure
are
carri
ed o
ut fo
llow
ing
a pr
evio
us n
otifi
catio
n an
d co
nsen
t of t
he
Publ
ic P
rocu
rem
ent O
ffice
Num
ber a
nd v
alue
of p
ublic
pro
cure
men
ts u
pon
a ne
gotia
tion
proc
edur
e ab
out w
hich
the
Publ
ic P
rocu
rem
ent O
ffice
is n
ot
notifi
ed a
nd h
as n
ot g
rant
ed co
nsen
t for
such
pro
cure
men
t
8Pu
blic
atio
n of
and
invi
tatio
n fo
r bid
s don
e in
a w
ay th
at n
ot a
s m
any
as p
ossib
le b
idde
rs a
re in
form
ed a
bout
itTh
e pu
blic
pro
cure
men
ts, p
artic
ular
ly th
ose
of a
larg
er v
alue
, sh
ould
be
publ
ished
in a
dai
ly n
ewsp
aper
of a
larg
er ci
rcul
atio
n,
inst
ead
of in
new
spap
ers o
f sm
all o
r ins
igni
fican
t circ
ulat
ion
Nu
mbe
r and
val
ue o
f pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ents
carri
ed o
ut th
roug
h ad
ds in
pap
ers o
f lar
ge ci
rcul
atio
n
9Su
bmiss
ion
of a
smal
l num
ber o
f fict
itiou
s, le
ss co
mpe
titiv
e bi
ds
by co
mpa
nies
clos
e to
the
supp
lier i
nten
ded
to w
in th
e te
nder
The
maj
ority
of t
he b
idde
rs e
nsur
es h
ighe
r com
petit
iven
ess a
nd
mor
e fa
vora
ble
cond
ition
s for
the
mun
icip
ality
in th
e pu
blic
pr
ocur
emen
t pro
cess
Av
erag
e nu
mbe
r of b
ids i
n an
ope
n an
d lim
ited
invi
tatio
n
10No
tran
spar
ency
in th
e pr
oced
ure
and
the
docu
men
tatio
n re
late
d to
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
publ
ic p
rocu
rem
ent
The
proc
edur
e fo
r im
plem
entin
g pu
blic
pro
cure
men
ts sh
ould
be
trans
pare
nt, a
nd th
e in
form
atio
n re
late
d to
it sh
ould
be
avai
labl
e fo
r the
bid
ders
and
the
publ
ic
Info
rmin
g al
l bid
ders
with
the
outc
ome
of th
e co
mpl
eted
pub
lic
proc
urem
ents
and
allo
win
g ac
cess
to re
late
d in
form
atio
n
11Fo
llow
ing
the
com
plet
ion
of th
e pu
blic
pro
cure
men
t, th
e re
late
d do
cum
ents
and
info
rmat
ion
are
not a
rchi
ved
in a
com
plet
e, e
asily
un
ders
tand
able
file
Th
e en
tire
docu
men
tatio
n fro
m th
e pu
blic
pro
cure
men
t sho
uld
be
arch
ived
in a
sepa
rate
, eas
y to
find
and
ana
lyze
file
Exist
ence
of s
epar
ate,
nea
tly a
rchi
ved
files
cont
aini
ng a
ll do
cum
ents
and
info
rmat
ion
rela
ted
to th
e sp
ecifi
c pub
lic
proc
urem
ent
12En
terin
g in
to a
gree
men
ts fo
r pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ent a
t a lo
wer
pric
e an
d un
der t
erm
s and
cond
ition
s tha
t do
not
com
plet
ely
coin
cide
w
ith th
e se
lect
ed b
id
The
publ
ic p
rocu
rem
ent a
gree
men
t is t
o be
sign
ed a
t the
pric
es,
tech
nica
l spe
cific
atio
n an
d co
nditi
ons t
hat a
re id
entic
al w
ith th
ose
in th
e se
lect
ed b
id
Agre
emen
ts st
atin
g no
pric
e, co
ntai
ning
insu
ffici
ent e
lem
ents
re
gard
ing
qual
ity a
nd/o
r del
iver
y te
rms o
r with
term
s and
co
nditi
ons d
iffer
ent f
rom
thos
e off
ered
in th
e se
lect
ed b
id
13Ch
angi
ng th
e ag
reem
ents
with
ann
exes
, am
endi
ng th
e pr
ice,
qu
ality
of t
he g
oods
or s
ervi
ces a
nd th
e te
rms o
f the
pub
lic
proc
urem
ent
The
pric
e, q
ualit
y an
d te
rms o
f the
agr
eem
ent m
ay o
nly
be
chan
ged
as a
n ex
cept
ion
and
with
a re
ason
able
exp
lana
tion
for
the
reas
ons f
or su
ch a
chan
ge
Num
ber a
nd v
alue
of p
rocu
rem
ents
whe
re th
e pr
ice,
feat
ures
and
te
rms o
f the
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ent h
ave
been
chan
ged
by a
n an
nex
to th
e in
itial
agr
eem
ent
14Ke
epin
g re
cord
s of c
ompa
nies
that
faile
d to
mee
t the
cond
ition
s fro
m th
e pr
evio
us p
ublic
pro
cure
men
t agr
eem
ents
with
the
mun
icip
ality
Inco
mpl
ete
or lo
w q
ualit
y re
aliza
tion
of p
revi
ous p
ublic
pr
ocur
emen
ts sh
ould
a se
rious
obs
tacl
e to
win
ning
new
cont
ract
s w
ith th
e m
unic
ipal
ity
Exist
ence
of r
ecor
ds o
f com
pani
es th
at h
ave
met
thei
r obl
igat
ions
un
der p
revi
ous p
ublic
pro
cure
men
ts a
gree
men
ts in
com
plet
ely
or
with
poo
r qua
lity
Met
ho
do
log
y fo
r M
easu
rin
g t
he
ind
ex o
f re
spo
nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level
28
IND
EX D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
TABL
E –
PU
BLIC
PRO
CURE
MEN
T In
dica
tors
Qua
ntifi
cati
on o
f ind
icat
ors
Valu
e
1Ex
iste
nce
and
degr
ee o
f abi
ding
by
the
annu
al p
ublic
pr
ocur
emen
t pla
n, w
hich
is in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
budg
et a
nd
deve
lopm
ent p
lan
of th
e m
unic
ipal
ity
Ther
e is
an
annu
al p
lan
and
it is
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e bu
dget
and
dev
elop
men
t pla
n . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .3
poin
tsTh
ere
is a
n an
nual
pla
n, b
ut is
not
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e bu
dget
and
dev
elop
men
t pla
n . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
2 po
ints
Ther
e is
no
annu
al p
lan .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
1 po
int
1.1
Proc
urem
ents
are
in c
ompl
ete
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e an
nual
pla
n . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .3 p
oint
sTh
e m
ajor
ity o
f pro
cure
men
ts a
re in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
annu
al p
lan .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .2 p
oint
sA
smal
ler p
ortio
n of
the
proc
urem
ents
are
don
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
annu
al p
lan
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
1 po
int
2Th
e an
nual
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ent p
lan
is re
ceiv
ed b
y th
e Pu
blic
Pr
ocur
emen
t Offi
ceTh
e an
nual
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ent p
lan
is su
bmitt
ed to
the
Publ
ic P
rocu
rem
ent O
ffice
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
3 po
ints
The
annu
al p
ublic
pro
cure
men
t pla
n is
not
subm
itted
to th
e Pu
blic
Pro
cure
men
t Offi
ce . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .1
poi
nt
3Im
plem
enta
tion
of p
roce
dure
s for
smal
l val
ue p
rocu
rem
ents
of
the
sam
e ty
pe o
f goo
ds a
nd se
rvic
es in
the
cour
se o
f one
yea
rSm
all v
alue
pro
cure
men
ts o
f the
sam
e ty
pe a
re v
ery
rare
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .3
poi
nts
Smal
l val
ue p
rocu
rem
ents
of t
he sa
me
type
are
don
e oc
casi
onal
ly . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .2
poi
nts
Smal
l val
ue p
rocu
rem
ents
of t
he sa
me
type
are
don
e fre
quen
tly . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .1
poi
nt
4Ex
iste
nce
of a
pre
cise
tech
nica
l spe
cific
atio
n of
the
good
s and
se
rvic
es in
the
tend
er d
ocum
enta
tion
Th
ere
is a
lway
s a p
reci
se te
chni
cal s
peci
ficat
ion .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .3
poi
nts
Ther
e is
a p
reci
se te
chni
cal d
ocum
enta
tion
in m
ost o
f the
cas
es . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .2
poin
tsTh
ere
is a
pre
cise
tech
nica
l doc
umen
tatio
n in
som
e of
the
case
s . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .1 p
oint
4.1
Exis
tenc
e of
a te
chni
cal s
peci
ficat
ion
of th
e go
ods,
whi
ch st
ates
th
e tr
ade
nam
e or
bra
nd
No
trad
e na
me
or b
rand
are
stat
ed . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .3
poi
nts
A tr
ade
nam
e or
bra
nd is
stat
ed in
a p
ortio
n of
the
proc
urem
ents
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .2
poi
nts
A tr
ade
nam
e or
bra
nd is
stat
ed in
the
maj
ority
of p
rocu
rem
ents
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
1 po
int
5Ex
iste
nce
of p
reci
se e
valu
atio
n cr
iteria
and
sub-
crite
ria fo
r aw
ardi
ng p
oint
s to
the
bids
Ther
e ar
e al
way
s pre
cise
crit
eria
for a
war
ding
poi
nts .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .3
poin
tsTh
ere
are
prec
ise
crite
ria fo
r aw
ardi
ng p
oint
s in
mos
t of t
he c
ases
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .2
poin
tsTh
ere
are
prec
ise
crite
ria fo
r aw
ardi
ng p
oint
s in
som
e of
the
case
s . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .1
poi
nt
6Ex
iste
nce
of d
ata
on p
revi
ousl
y co
nduc
ted
mar
ket r
esea
rch
rela
ted
to p
rices
and
qua
lity
of g
oods
and
serv
ices
pro
cure
d Pr
evio
us m
arke
t res
earc
h is
don
e fre
quen
tly . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .3 p
oint
sPr
evio
us m
arke
t res
earc
h is
don
e oc
casi
onal
ly . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .2
poi
nts
No
prev
ious
mar
ket r
esea
rch
is d
one
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .1
poi
nt
7N
umbe
r and
val
ue o
f neg
otia
ted
publ
ic p
rocu
rem
ents
for
whi
ch th
e Pu
blic
Pro
cure
men
t Offi
ce is
not
info
rmed
and
has
no
t gra
nted
con
sent
No
nego
tiate
d pr
ocur
emen
ts th
at th
e Pu
blic
Pro
cure
men
t Offi
ce is
not
info
rmed
abo
ut . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .5
poi
nts
A s
mal
l num
ber o
f neg
otia
ted
proc
urem
ents
with
no
notifi
catio
n of
the
PP O
ffice
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .3
poin
tsA
larg
e nu
mbe
r of n
egot
iate
d pr
ocur
emen
ts w
ith n
o no
tifica
tion
of th
e PP
Offi
ce . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .1 p
oint
7.1
No
proc
urem
ents
with
out a
pub
lic te
nder
to w
hich
the
PP O
ffice
has
no
cons
ent . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .5
poin
tsA
sm
all p
ortio
n of
the
proc
urem
ents
with
out a
pub
lic te
nder
are
don
e w
ithou
t the
co
nsen
t of t
he P
ublic
Pro
cure
men
t Offi
ce . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .3
poin
tsA
larg
e po
rtio
n of
the
proc
urem
ents
with
out a
pub
lic te
nder
are
don
e w
ithou
t the
co
nsen
t of t
he P
ublic
Pro
cure
men
t Offi
ce . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .1
poi
nt
8N
umbe
r and
val
ue o
f pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ents
don
e by
pub
liciz
ing
in
a da
ily n
ewsp
aper
of a
larg
er c
ircul
atio
n M
ost o
f the
pub
lic te
nder
s ar
e pu
blic
ized
in a
new
spap
er o
f a la
rge
circ
ulat
ion
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.5 p
oint
sA
por
tion
of th
e pu
blic
tend
ers
is p
ublic
ized
in a
new
spap
er o
f a la
rge
circ
ulat
ion .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .3
poin
tsM
ost o
f the
pub
lic te
nder
s ar
e pu
blic
ized
in a
new
spap
er o
f a s
mal
l circ
ulat
ion .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .1 p
oint
8.1
The
tota
l val
ue o
f the
pro
cure
men
ts p
ublic
ized
in a
larg
e ci
rcul
atio
n pa
per i
s hi
gh . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
5 po
ints
The
tota
l val
ue o
f the
pro
cure
men
ts p
ublic
ized
in a
larg
e ci
rcul
atio
n pa
per i
s no
t hig
h . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .3
poi
nts
The
tota
l val
ue o
f the
pro
cure
men
ts p
ublic
ized
in a
larg
e ci
rcul
atio
n pa
per i
s lo
w . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .1
poin
t
9Av
erag
e nu
mbe
r of b
ids
in a
n op
en a
nd li
mite
d pu
blic
invi
tatio
nM
ore
than
five
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .5
poin
tsTh
ree
to fi
ve . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .3
poin
tsTh
ree .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .1
poin
t
10In
form
ing
all b
idde
rs w
ith th
e ou
tcom
e of
the
publ
ic p
rocu
rem
ent
and
allo
win
g ac
cess
to th
e re
late
d in
form
atio
n
Bidd
ers
are
regu
larly
info
rmed
abo
ut th
e ou
tcom
e of
the
tend
er . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
3 po
ints
Bidd
ers
are
freq
uent
ly in
form
ed a
bout
the
outc
ome
of th
e te
nder
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.2 p
oint
sBi
dder
s ar
e ra
rely
info
rmed
abo
ut th
e ou
tcom
e of
the
tend
er . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
1 po
int
29
Bidd
ers
are
freq
uent
ly a
llow
ed a
cces
s to
the
tend
er in
form
atio
n . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .5 p
oint
sTh
e ac
cess
to in
form
atio
n ab
out t
he te
nder
is p
artia
l or r
are .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .2
poin
tsBi
dder
s ar
e no
t allo
wed
acc
ess
to in
form
atio
n ab
out t
he te
nder
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
1 po
int
11Ex
iste
nce
of s
epar
ate,
nea
tly a
rchi
ved
files
con
tain
ing
all
docu
men
ts a
nd in
form
atio
n re
late
d to
a s
peci
fic p
ublic
pr
ocur
emen
t
All
files
are
com
plet
e an
d or
derly
kep
t . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .3 p
oint
sM
ost o
f the
file
s ar
e co
mpl
ete
and
orde
rly k
ept .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .2
poin
tsA
sm
all n
umbe
r of fi
les
are
com
plet
e an
d or
derly
kep
t . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .1
poin
t
12A
gree
men
ts s
tatin
g no
pric
e, in
suffi
cien
t num
ber o
f ele
men
ts
rega
rdin
g qu
ality
, ter
ms
of d
eliv
ery
or a
gree
men
ts w
ith te
rms
diffe
rent
from
thos
e in
the
sele
cted
bid
No
agre
emen
ts th
at d
o no
t coi
ncid
e w
ith th
e se
lect
ed b
id . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
3 po
ints
An
insi
gnifi
cant
num
ber o
f the
agr
eem
ents
do
not c
oinc
ide
with
the
sele
cted
bid
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .2
poin
tsA
sig
nific
ant n
umbe
r of t
he a
gree
men
ts d
o no
t coi
ncid
e w
ith th
e se
lect
ed b
id . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
1 po
int
13N
umbe
r and
val
ue o
f pro
cure
men
ts w
here
the
pric
e, fe
atur
es a
nd
term
s an
d co
nditi
ons
of th
e pu
blic
pro
cure
men
t wer
e ch
ange
d by
an
ann
ex to
the
initi
al a
gree
men
t
Ther
e ar
e no
ann
exes
to a
ny o
f the
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ent a
gree
men
ts . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .5
poin
tsTh
ere
are
anne
xes
to a
n in
sign
ifica
nt n
umbe
r of p
ublic
pro
cure
men
t agr
eem
ents
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .2
poin
tsTh
ere
are
anne
xes
to th
e m
ajor
ity o
f the
pub
lic p
rocu
rem
ent a
gree
men
ts . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.1 p
oint
13.1
The
tota
l val
ue o
f the
pro
cure
men
ts w
ith a
nnex
es to
the
agre
emen
ts is
ver
y lo
w . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .5
poi
nts
The
tota
l val
ue o
f the
pro
cure
men
ts w
ith a
nnex
es to
the
agre
emen
ts is
not
hig
h . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .2 p
oint
The
tota
l val
ue o
f the
pro
cure
men
ts w
ith a
nnex
es to
the
agre
emen
ts is
ver
y hi
gh . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. .1 p
oint
14Ex
iste
nce
of re
cord
s of
com
pani
es th
at h
ave
met
thei
r obl
igat
ions
in
pre
viou
s pr
ocur
emen
ts in
an
inco
mpl
ete
or p
oor q
ualit
y w
ay
Reco
rds
are
kept
and
this
is a
n ob
stac
le fo
r tho
se b
idde
rs’ p
artic
ipat
ion
in te
nder
s . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
5 po
ints
Reco
rds
are
kept
, but
this
is n
o ob
stac
le fo
r tho
se b
idde
rs’ p
artic
ipat
ion
in te
nder
s . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .3
poi
nts
No
reco
rds
are
kept
of c
ompa
nies
with
unf
ulfil
led
oblig
atio
ns to
war
ds th
e m
unic
ipal
ity . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
1 po
int
CIP - Каталогизација во публикацијаНационална и универзитетска библиотека „Св. Климент Охридски“, Скопје
343.352:352
Methodology for measuring the Index of responsibility, transparency and accountability at local level. - Skopje : United Nations Development Programme, 2008. - 30 стр. : 21 cm
ISBN 978-9989-188-41-1
а) Локална самоуправа - Корупција - Спречување - Методологија - ВодичиCOBISS,MK-ID 73450762