Promoting Transparency in the Decision-Making Process By Setting Up a Transparency Register (RUTI) (RO0039)

Status quo or problem addressed by the commitment Presently, there is not sufficient transparency in the interactions between public institutions and interested parties from the private sector that promote their interests in relation to various legislative initiatives. Equally, the central public administration has limited resources to proactively identify interested parties from the private sector with which to maintain transparent communications and consultations in the various phases of initiating and developing public policies initiatives. Main objective Ensure transparency and integrity in the decision-making process Brief description of commitment Improve the transparency of the public decision-making process by disclosing interactions between high public officials and interested parties from the private sector that promote their interests in relation to various legislative initiatives. RUTI is a register of interest representatives from the private sector that willingly provide data about the entity they represent. The RUTI also includes information about the registrants’ interactions with decision-makers from the public sector. In this respect, dignitaries, high-level public servants and general directors of state companies will also publish on this platform information about their meetings with groups from the private sector, the subject of the meeting and brief conclusions. This aspect is a continuation of MCPDC’s efforts to publish the agendas of high-level officials from the central government, a requirement that was included in the Memorandum for on improving transparency and standardizing public interest information. The register will managed by the MCPDC, in partnership with the MJ and CPM. OPG challenge addressed by the commitment Increasing public integrity Relevance Access to information and accountability by improving transparency in the decision-making process Ambition Ensuring transparency in the decision-making process

10. Promoting transparency in the decision-making process by setting up a Transparency Register (RUTI)

Commitment Text:

Improve the transparency of the public decision-making process by disclosing interactions between high public officials and interested parties from the private sector that promote their interests in relation to various legislative initiatives. RUTI is a register of interest for representatives from the private sector that willingly provide data about the entity they represent. RUTI also includes information about the registrants’ interactions with decision-makers from the public sector. In this respect, dignitaries, high-level public servants and general directors of state companies will also publish on this platform information about their meetings with groups from the private sector, the subject of the meeting and brief conclusions. This aspect is a continuation of MCPDC’s efforts to publish the agendas of high-level officials from the central government, a requirement that was included in the Memorandum for on improving transparency and standardizing public interest information. The register will managed by the MCPDC, in partnership with the MJ and CPM.

Main Objective:

Transparency and integrity of the decision-making process

Milestones:

6. • Develop the concept of the Unique Transparency of Interests Register (RUTI)
   • Development of the gov.ro platform
   • Public consultation with the civil society and private sector on the proposed mechanism
   • Launch and testing of the platform
   • Assessment of the results

Responsible Institution: Ministry for Public Consultation and Civic Dialogue (MCPDC)

Supporting Institution(s): Ministry of Justice, Chancellery of the Prime-Minister

Start date: 2016                                                                                 End date: February 2017

Editorial Note: The commitment text is abridged. The full text can be found in the OGP 2016–2018 national action plan.

Commitment Aim

This commitment aimed to increase transparency of meetings between public officials and groups or individuals seeking to influence political decision makers, by publishing meetings between public officials and private sector members that seek to promote their interests in relation to various legislative initiatives. This commitment aimed to design and develop the RUTI platform (Milestones 1 and 2), in consultation with civil society and private sector stakeholders (Milestone 3). The commitment also aimed to launch and test the platform where meetings between companies and legislators can be registered (Milestone 4) and to evaluate the results of the platform (Milestone 5).

STATUS

Midterm: Complete

RUTI (the concept and platform) was developed in consultation with civil society and was launched and tested by midterm. The assessment of the platform’s impact on increasing transparency and integrity in the decision-making process was not started.

The assessment of the platform’s impact was completed. The government’s 2018 self-assessment report provides some statistics on the degree to which RUTI is used—i.e. the platform has 194 registered public officials, 2,020 registered special interest groups, and approximately 2,300 registered meetings—all of which show the platform is steadily receiving traction among public servants and potential lobbyists. [84]

Did it Open Government?

Access to information: Marginal

At the time of writing this report, 194 decision-makers have their information on the RUTI platform. [85] However, the platform has not been used by any major watchdog or anti-corruption NGOs, as information provided on RUTI is insufficient to uncover abuse of power. [86] Ideally, the information provided on the RUTI portal would be high-quality, centralized, and downloadable in a machine-readable format, and rich in data-points, would cover all relevant actors in real time and could be used to corroborate other information on members of the public administration (e.g. the transparency register or the register of financial declarations), such that “anomalies” could be detected. [87]

Carried forward?

This commitment will be continued in the 2018–2020 national action plan as Commitment 6: “Extending standards on access to public information at the level of local public authorities.”

[84] “National Action Plan 2016-2018: Self-assessment report”, Open Government Partnership, 2018, pages 43-44, available [in Romanian] at https://bit.ly/2vv2yw7.

^[85] The Memorandum on the Establishment of the Single Register of Transparency of Interests concerns only the decision-makers in the central public administration (e.g. Prime Minister, Head of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Secretary General of the Government, State Securities, State Councilors, leaders of rank of dignitaries of other institutions or central bodies of the public administration subordinated to the Government or ministries). The Memorandum is available [in Romanian] at https://bit.ly/2Z0Ag98.

[86] “IRM Romania Progress Report 2016–2017”, IRM, 2018, page 55, available at https://goo.gl/AHqzEe.

[87] See as example “Open data to fight corruption. Case study: the EU and lobbying”, Transparency International, 2016, available at https://bit.ly/2V4xZHZ.