The Government of Montenegro will end the long-standing practice of declaring information about public officials who received housing loans on favorable terms a secret.
Prime Minister Duško Marković promised that yesterday, answering a question from independent MP Neđeljko Rudović.
However, he did not specify whether this will be applied to officials who have yet to resolve the housing issue under favorable conditions or to those who have exercised this right in the previous period.
The prime minister now agrees that it is unfair that the information is still classified.
"I will be direct, since public officials report property to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, including detailed information on how they got an apartment or a loan based on the decision of the Government Commission, I do not see why the decision on the allocation of an apartment or loan to an official should not be published," he said on prime minister's hour.
That the Government has taken a big step back when it comes to transparency and availability of data on the use of budget funds is also indicated by the fact that information about its decisions on the granting of loans, which are hidden today, was available to the public ten years ago.
Civil servants are not political figures, but professionals who will work in another government, maybe in yours, they are a pillar of the administration and we will continue to support them to solve the housing issue," Marković said.
This is evidenced by the response of the General Secretariat of the Government dated March 31, 2009 to the request for access to information submitted by the NGO Institut Alternativa (IA). In that response, which "Vijesti" had access to, access to information on the granting of loans, money or housing to public officials is granted and accompanying documentation is provided. Among those who received loans in 2007 and 2008 were officials from the executive, legislative and judicial authorities, as well as from independent institutions: Predrag Mitrović, Miodrag Radusinović, Desanka Lopičić, Dušan Simonović, Božidar Vuksanović, Zlatko Bulić, Dragutin Čolaković, Budimir Šćepanović, Šefko Crnovršanin, Mersad Mujević, Miodrag Iličković, Slobodan Leković, Marijana Laković, Danka Latković, Miraš Radović, Vukoman Golubović, Zoran Pažin and Rajko Novićević.
Ten years later, the government is hiding from the public the plans for solving housing needs that it had to make in accordance with its own decisions. Since February, the General Secretariat of the Government has been silent on the demands and numerous urgencies of the IA. In April, IA submitted an appeal to the Agency for Personal Data Protection and Access to Information, but the appeal has not yet been decided, although the legal deadline for such a decision is 15 days. In the meantime, the General Secretariat tried to transfer the responsibility for providing information to the Commission for Housing Issues, which is now headed by the Minister of Defense Predrag Bošković, and the Agency, as they say in the IA, tried to "encourage them to give up the appeal and accept this obvious manipulation".
The Ministry of Public Administration recently rejected the initiative of the civil sector to start a petition "Our money, their apartments and secret funds" in which they propose that the Government change its policy regarding the publication of information on the work of commissions for housing policy and the distribution of budget reserve funds.
The petition proposes to remove the secrecy mark from all acts of those commissions, which were created from 2006 until today, and that all documentation be published on the Government's website.
That the Government is a mother to some and a stepmother to others is illustrated by the example that the head of the Supreme Court, Vesna Medenica, had her housing issue resolved three times, as well as the problems faced by the hygienist employed by the HB Government.
"Dan" previously announced that Medenica received an 80-square-meter apartment from the Government on favorable terms in the "Vektra" building in Podgorica and later gave it to her daughter. Earlier, she received a housing loan of 40.000 euros under preferential terms, of which she returned 6.800 euros, and in fact the Government honored her with 33.200 euros. Also, after that, he receives an additional 20.000 euros for solving the housing issue. And on top of all that, she gets another loan of 40.000 euros, of which she paid back only 6.800 euros.
IA points out that, according to the available data, the Government rewarded Medenica with an 80-square-meter apartment in one of the most expensive locations, and a loan of 100.000, of which she paid back about 15.000 (it is not known how much she paid back of the 20.000 euro loan).
By the way, she also has a house of 146 square meters in Podgorica and a building plot of 334 square meters.
Medenica, who two days ago began her third, disputed term at the head of the Supreme Court, reported to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption that she earned an average of just over 3.500 euros per month last year.
Her salary with special allowance was 2.700 euros, while in the Judicial Council she earned an additional 612 euros per month. As a member of the Evaluation Commission of the Judicial Council, she was paid the sums of 229, 459 and 1.224 euros, while in the Commission for taking the bar exam of the Ministry of Justice, she earned a little more than 1.750 euros.
On the other hand, the hygienist HB, whose salary is ten times less than Medeničina's, turned to the Commission for Housing Affairs of the Government to help her solve the housing issue in 2012. Since the Commission did not deign to respond even after two years, she complained to the Protector of Human Rights, who made a recommendation in 2014 To the Commission to "respond without delay, in writing, to the request of HB dated February 20, 02".
In response, the Commission stated in its statement that "it had no obligation to respond to the request", as well as that it does not have the authority to solve the housing needs of employees in state administration bodies individually, that is, it is not able to meet a large number of requests from individuals who turn to the Commission for help in solving housing needs. The Protector stated in his opinion that this attitude of the Commission is unacceptable.
The government does not respect either the Law or the Rules of Procedure
In July 2016, the government refused to provide an answer to the parliamentary question of Neven Gošović to which persons it resolved the housing issue in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, under the justification that those documents were "marked internally", as stated in the president's answer Commission of Predrag Bošković. The Commission has repeatedly explained that the law does not allow them to publish data.
Gošović told "Vijesta" yesterday that the answer sounded unbelievable to him. He replied that a lot of time has passed since then and that such information is still a secret.
Therefore, the Alternative Institute points out, the Government also violated the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, which give MPs the right to access all official materials, documents and data that are prepared or collected by the Government, ministries and other state administration bodies, and which relate to issues of importance to exercising the parliamentary function.
Namely, the deputy has the right to request notifications and explanations from the minister and other officials, which refer to tasks within the framework of the rights and duties of these officials, i.e. tasks within the competence of the authorities they manage, and which he needs in order to perform the duties of a deputy. The IA indicates that if the Government fully respected the Law on Free Access to Information, it would proactively, without waiting for the requests of non-governmental organizations and MPs, publish all information related to the decisions of the Commission for Housing Issues. The law prescribed that individual acts and contracts on the disposal of financial resources from public revenues and state property, as well as the list of public officials and the list of calculations of their earnings and other incomes and benefits related to the exercise of public office, be proactively published. It is indisputable that the allowances from the budget for the housing needs of officials are exactly what the law prescribes as information that must be proactively published.
Bonus video:
