Public information

Key monitoring findings in the domain of information and citizens’ access to decision-making indicate major structural shortcomings of local governance in Prizren. The process of monitoring, among others, has identified several challenging aspects of transparency.


Online communication with the citizen is a section in its initial phase of development, as the official website of Prizren Municipality contains, in its most part, protocol information. This website lacks information on the decisions and working reports, and provides limited access to municipal public documents.


The official website of Prizren Municipality is seen as a great potential for increasing municipal transparency. Prizren Municipality, however, is largely inert in posting relevant information about the decision-making on the website.


As a general rule, decisions adopted in their final form are posted on the website. This practice is rather contrary to the requirements of democratic governance, which requires coining the opportunities for public participation and influence in decision-making throughout the process of policy-making. Prizren Municipality fails to publicize municipal acts in their preliminary/draft form on the municipal official website. This represents another serious hindrance and proves the unwillingness of local decision-makers in inclusion of citizens in the draft of public policies.


Another shortcoming of good governance in Prizren Municipality is non-adherence to the Law on Access to Public Documents. According to reports of research organizations, the situation with the most pitfalls in the area of access to public documents is at the municipal level; and the Municipality of Prizren ranks in rather low levels of these assessments.


One of the most disruptive actions, at the same most detrimental to local democracy, rendered during the term of office of incumbent Mayor has been the closure of mayor’s meetings with the directors (formerly the Board of Directors) for the public. From the time this decision was taken, it has never been provided a clear and conclusive rationale for the reasonableness of such closure. This practice, which opposes to core principles of transparent governance, proves to be unparalleled evidence that Prizren Municipality is failing in enforcing the requirements of good governance. Note should also be taken that during the meetings of the mayor with municipal directors, the most sensitive decisions on the management of municipal budget are being taken.


The citizens of Prizren Municipality yet are not part of local policy-making and their inclusion in the process of consultation is extremely rare or barely formal. So far, instruments of direct democracy, provided in the Law on Local Self-Government and in the Statute of Prizren Municipality, remain an untapped opportunity in Prizren Municipality. On the other side, the Municipality of Prizren is demonstrating total incapacity in involving the citizens in decision-making through public consultations, meetings with the public, participatory budgeting and consultancy committees.


The Regulation on Transparency of Prizren Municipality, in its core framework adopted by the Municipal Assembly, is completely non-compulsory for the mayor and the executive branch of the municipality. Therefore, such regulation, where responsibilities of the municipal executive are not specified, represents deliberate dodging from the responsibility and accountability. Moreover, it reduces the transparency solely to the Municipal Assembly. With the existing content of the Regulation not only the municipal transparency shall not be promoted, but contrariwise – it shall grant the Mayor great excuse for being pardoned from the criticisms for the lack of transparency.


The Audit Report of the Auditor General of Kosovo for the municipality of Prizren of 2011 indicates the incompetence of Prizren Municipality for adherence to good governance and transparency relative to the expenditure of public money. From 60 samples tested by the Auditor, that cover over 6 million of the payments of expenditures through procurement procedures, it was observed that in 17 samples the municipality has undertaken procurement procedures which are not in accordance with the Law on Public Procurement.