An analysis of the websites of public institutions and state-owned enterprises points to a reduced level of transparency. Only organizational data are published on the websites – the organogram and the legal framework. Also, most of the institutions actively inform about the employment opportunities, but the financial data about budgets, procurement and salaries of managers are incomplete, says the second Report on Access to Information presented by Freedom House, IPN reports.
“These shortcomings are offset by the governmental transparency mechanism only to a small extent. It goes to the public portal m-tender intended for public procurement and the website of the NIA, the section about the property and interest statements of functionaries. A large number of institutions at central and local levels do not obey at least the essential obligations concerning proactive transparency. Here, we can mention the Ministry of Culture, the Edineț District Council, the Anti-Doping National Agency, the Service for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering and the Prosecutor General’s Office,” said one of the authors of the report Stela Pavlov, expert on media, anticorruption and justice sector reforms.
The study covered a sample of 58 public institutions, ministries and subordinate institutions and also 15 state-owned enterprises and joint stock companies in which the state owns holdings. “No essential progress was made in the field of pro-ctive transparency since the assessment of 2021. The availability of essential organizational, financial and personnel data remains a challenge,” noted the expert.
There was alas analyzed the access to information on request. For the purpose, standardized requests for information of public interest were made. The questions referred to the salaries of managers of public institutions, information about public procurement contracts, subsidies, grants, etc. Stela Pavlov said that the largest part of the provided information referred to subsidies, grants and donations offered to legal entities. The largest part of the institutions answered that they didn’t provide subsidies and grants. Over half presented information about procurement procedures. Insufficient information was furnished about the salaries of managers. There were institutions that refused to provide information about financial aspects.
