|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
USAID Mission to Lithuania
Europe & Eurasia
>> E&E Home >> Lithuania >> Open Parliamentary Committee Hearings in Lithuania
Open Parliamentary Committee Hearings in LithuaniaBy Mark Segal; USAID/Lithuania
January, 1999
This Report describes the Program on Open Legislative Process in Lithuania. The goal is to provide practical information for donors and parliamentarians concerning how to arrange open committee hearings in new democracies and countries in transition. A written explanation of what has been done in Lithuania and why will facilitate and encourage similar exercises in other countries, particularly since open hearings involve many "moving parts" which must be well coordinated. Naturally, the national context (parliamentary, political, legal, cultural, and personal) must be carefully considered. Yet the fundamental steps/activities are comparable, and can be enumerated.
During 1998, the Lithuanian Seimas (Parliament) began to amend its Statutes, or organic documents. One goal was to increase the power of committees during the legislative process, and establish formal procedures for experts and representatives of civil society to comment on draft laws at open committee hearings. Citizen participation and legislative transparency were seen as important in their own right, and as a means to improve the quality of laws passed. These steps highlight Lithuania’s great progress towards creating a democratic state based on the rule of law.
This legislative reform led to public calls for more citizen involvement from many political leaders. Accordingly, in the summer of 1998, USAID began discussions with the Seimas leadership. An Agreement setting forth the format and goals of the Program on Open Legislative Process (hereinafter "Program") was signed with Seimas Vice-Chairman Andrius Kubilius in early October. The Program was set for December 9, and the draft Law on Charity and Sponsorship for NGOs was selected for review. The Agreement documented official support for the Program, and contributed to an exceptional level of cooperation with MPs, staff, and other officials. World Learning, the USAID training provider, very capably made technical arrangements (subcontracting with key parties, retaining the expert, arranging schedules) and helped supervise the Program.
The basic objective of the Program was to institutionalize and systematize legislative procedures providing for regular input from the governed concerning draft laws. This could take the form of live testimony, written commentary, and expert opinion. Fortunately, Lithuania had already made considerable progress. Committee meetings were not strictly closed to outsiders, and comments from experts and informed parties (members of legislative drafting groups, government officials, etc.) were allowed. However, such input occurred on an ad-hoc basis, without systematic mechanisms for participation by representatives of civil society and business. It was novel to prepare formal Guidelines for the hearing, publicly invite NGOs to speak, accept written statements from all interested parties, open the hearing to citizens and the media, apply time limits to statements by witnesses and questions/answers, and publish a Hearing Booklet with a full transcript of the testimony and written statements.
The Program had two components: a morning plenary session for the entire Seimas, and an afternoon open committee hearing on the Law on Charity and Sponsorship. This was considered the best way to combine theory and practice, inspire the participants, and build momentum for institutional change. Meetings and consultations with all parties both preceded and followed the Program events on December 9, to make sure that they were successful, and to learn from them.
The plenary session, mostly for MPs and government officials, was designed to a) explain the importance and benefits of greater citizen access to the Seimas, b) summarize the procedures for open hearings in various democratic countries, c) describe the basic steps in the process, including how public participation is arranged and facilitated, d) discuss the advantages and disadvantages of open hearings, and e) consider how open hearings can be institutionalized in Lithuania.
The open hearing was conducted jointly by two Committees: Budget and Finance, and Social Affairs and Labor. It concerned draft amendments to the Law on Charity and Sponsorship, which governs the tax treatment of contributions to NGOs. This law was chosen because it provided an excellent vehicle to bring civil society into the legislative process, and because of USAID’s long-standing efforts to improve the legal framework for NGOs in general, and this law in particular. The open hearing was intended to show, concretely, how such events are conducted, and how legislation can be improved by consulting experts and civil society representatives. It also provided hands-on experience for participants. An additional benefit was increased understanding of the legal framework for NGOs, and how legal problems can impede civil society development.
While many factors and activities contribute to making an open hearing successful and useful to the participants, there are three indispensable prerequisites:
- The open committee hearing must be legally permissible under the organic documents covering parliamentary procedures, or at least not prohibited. All applicable rules must be followed, and reflected in the hearing Guidelines.
Legality must be assured during the planning phase.- There must be a subject that is suitable for testimony from civil society representatives. It should be a draft law (possibly concerning NGOs) if the goal is to open the legislative process. Otherwise, the hearing can be informational. For the first such exercise, to avoid complications, the subject/law should not be controversial or inflame passions. The choice of subject/law also affects which Committees and MPs become involved. Finally, timing is crucial. A law should be before the parliament. The Law on Charity and Sponsorship was unexpectedly delayed, and ended up on the Agenda of the Council of Ministers for final approval on the same day as the hearing. However, since the draft was unlikely to change, all parties agreed to go forward with what became, technically speaking, an informational hearing. These circumstances were explained by the Committee Chairperson in her opening statement.
- There must be political will and genuine desire on the part of all necessary parties. Introducing new or modified parliamentary procedures (institutional reform) requires a serious commitment of time and energy from many sources. Success depends upon the level of motivation. The exercise in Lithuania enjoyed support not only from officials, but also the large number of MPs who have visited America and learned about, or in many cases witnessed, American legislative practices.
V. THE KEY STEPS IN ORGANIZING AN OPEN COMMITTEE HEARING
(A summary is found at Appendix A).
1) Meet with all involved government officials.
Goals: Assess current legislative procedures/practices, prepare Guidelines for the open hearing, brief officials on the work that needs to be done, build consensus for opening the legislative process, prepare for the plenary session and open hearing.
Technical assistance and briefings were provided to all parties involved with the plenary session and open hearing. Consultations were designed to facilitate this and future endeavors, in light of the planned revisions to the Seimas Statutes. One of the first steps was to identify key contact people for Committees and counterparts in charge of general arrangements (and obtain their mobile telephone numbers). The fact that two Committees had jurisdiction over the Law on Charity and Sponsorship created additional challenges. Yet the two liaisons, Mr. Aleksandras Mikalauskas of the Committee on Budget and Finance, and Mrs. Dalia Baublyte of the Committee on Social Affairs and Labor, worked incredibly diligently to make the Program a success.
The Division of Inter-Parliamentary Affairs, represented by Mr. Rimantas Stankevicius, was designated by Mr. Kubilius to supervise/backstop all arrangements. Mr. Stankevicius went above and beyond the call of duty concerning substantive issues and technical matters, the latter (location for the Program, room layout, interpreters, stenography, and equipment) with support from the Chancellory. Room layout is very important for a successful open hearing. The witness table should be in front of and facing the MPs, who are arranged in a single row, with staffers behind them, and the press and audience should have designated areas. Technical arrangements can easily become an obstacle to participants and the audience. Of incredible value, time and again, was a magazine photograph of an open hearing in Washington. It helped people visualize where MPs, witnesses, staff, journalists, and the public sit, and what type of facilities they require.
Through preliminary meetings, an understanding of current legislative practices was developed. A formal written assessment was planned, but ongoing changes in the Seimas Statutes complicated the effort, and it did not prove possible to recruit/involve law students (although doing so is recommended). Ideally, a formal assessment would be used by experts and constitute a baseline for analyzing changes. Among the questions we asked were: who is allowed to attend committee hearings, how are hearings publicized, who is allowed to testify and in what capacity, what parameters are there for the testimony, have written comments ever been solicited/accepted, what types of information would be most useful to have on a regular basis, etc.
The first priority was preparing the Guidelines for the open hearing. Based upon a review of the Rules for the U.S. House of Representatives, a list of basic questions was drawn up. Committee liaisons provided answers and participated in drafting the Guidelines, which were finalized by the Committee Chairpersons (who had this authority under the Seimas Statutes). The Guidelines were intended to provide basic and clear answers to the most important issues, and serve as a precedent for future hearings under the revised Statutes. The Guidelines are at Appendix B.
The lead expert, and before his arrival USAID staff, held meetings with several departments within the Seimas. The Press Division was briefed, and helped arrange the press conference (see below). The Information Analysis Department was extremely interested in the Program, and on its own initiative prepared a "briefing booklet" for Committee members. The Legal Department was briefed on the need to provide formal testimony concerning how draft laws fit into the existing legal framework. And arrangements were made with the Seimas Cafeteria for the buffet luncheon.
Mrs. Vilija Blinkeviciute (Vice-Minister of Social Security and Labor, and Chairperson of the legislative drafting group) and Mr. Rimantas Vaicenavicius (Vice-Minister of Finance, also on the legislative drafting group) were briefed on the Program and Guidelines, and what to expect at the hearing. Meetings with other officials on the legislative drafting group were considered but not held, since none wished to testify, despite their right to do so under the Guidelines. In retrospect this was favorable. If too many officials had wanted to testify, it would have been necessary to impose stricter time limits, or schedule two separate hearings, to guarantee NGOs their chance.
2) Collect information and materials.
Goals: Collect information and documents for the various audiences, and prepare, organize, and translate the materials to be distributed at the plenary session and open hearing.
Efforts to obtain materials (via internet and by contacting organizations working on legislative/legal reform) began immediately, and were pursued continuously. Several audiences with different needs were identified. MPs were most interested in comparative information on practices in other countries. Committee staff was interested in rules and procedures. And NGO representatives wanted to learn how to testify effectively. Videos of testimony in Congress were shown to all these parties. Translation and interpretation services were performed by the Center for Law and Democracy, under contract with World Learning. Suggested contact organizations include (in alphabetical order) the American Bar Association-Central and East European Law Initiative, the Congressional Research Service, EU-PHARE, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Democratic Institute, the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, the International Human Rights Law Group, the International Republican Institute, the Open Society Institute (Soros Organizations), UNDP, the United States Information Service, the World Bank, etc.
3) Search for experts and panelists.
Goals: Identify experts to lead the plenary session, be panelists, provide training/consultations.
The expert(s) can make or break any initiative, so the search began immediately. Individuals with comprehensive knowledge of legislative procedures and development experience were sought. It was originally planned to set up a panel containing scholars and MPs from neighboring countries, for short presentations and interactive discussions after the main speech. But this didn’t prove possible, in part because legislatures in many continental countries outside Scandinavia are not fully open at the committee level. Dr. Paul Rundquist, a specialist in American National Government with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, who worked with Lithuanian officials under the House of Representatives Frost Task Force, was chosen as lead expert. Dr. Rundquist could not make two visits, so he assisted with planning and preliminary arrangements from Washington. His arrival in-country was a full week before the Program. This enabled an extensive and very productive series of consultations with all of the key parties.
4) Prepare civil society to participate in the open hearing.
Goals: Publicize the open hearing amongst civil society representatives, collect written comments on the law being evaluated, and identify and prepare a core group of people for live testimony.
The first step, distribution of the new version of the Law on Charity and Sponsorship, was already taken by the NGO Information and Support Center. Its bi-monthly Third Sector Bulletin reached some 1500 NGOs throughout Lithuania. Publicity for the hearing began with an October 30 announcement by Mrs. Blinkeviciute (as designee of the Seimas Committees) at the annual NGO Forum, organized by the NGO Center, and attended by some 450 NGO representatives. Seventy-five individuals expressed interest in testifying by signing a list. Informal efforts to publicize the hearing amongst counterparts and prominent NGOs followed. An announcement was placed in the largest circulation daily newspaper one week before the hearing, but the response was limited, perhaps because the concept was novel, and it was difficult to find the right place in the newspaper.
Three voluntary sessions were held to assist NGO representatives. The goal was to educate and inform as many people as possible, while using self-screening to end up with a small group of highly motivated individuals ready to testify in person. The NGO Center managed this component of the Program, under contract with World Learning. The sessions lasted about three hours, and were held in the mid-afternoon, to accommodate participants. The first session was informational. About forty people heard a detailed explanation of the Program and open hearing. Committee staff, a significant gesture, introduced the Guidelines. The second session was devoted to advocacy techniques, both written and oral, and included presentations concerning how to testify effectively. A copy of one of the informational documents distributed, entitled "Testimony Before Parliamentary Committees", is at Appendix C. The third session, at which about fifteen people were present, included a final briefing by Dr. Rundquist, a review of written comments, and practice sessions for oral presentations.
According to the Guidelines, all written comments following the required format were submitted to the Seimas. After the three sessions, four NGO representatives were ready and willing to testify in person. Their names were submitted to the Committees, which gave formal/final approval for their testimony. In the future, Committees will contact experts and witnesses directly. But for the first exercise, it was agreed to engage the NGO Center to work with civil society representatives.
5) Ensure donor participation and coordination.
Goals: Prepare and distribute a Concept Paper describing the Program, bring all of the local donors into the process, ensure donor cooperation, and increase participation.
A Concept Paper describing the goals and structure of the Program was prepared right away, and used to inform all potentially interested parties (see Appendix D). To brief all donors, determine the potential for cooperation, and mobilize additional counterparts, a donor round table was held two months before the Program. This is standard procedure in Lithuania. For the most part it was a briefing, since few donors actively work on the legislative process. Still, the Open Society Fund agreed to sponsor one expert, and several other avenues for cooperation were identified.
6) Mobilize supportive parties.
Goals: Mobilize and involve officials who support opening the legislative process, and increase the level of participation in the Program and the momentum for reform.
A concerted effort was made to inform and involve parties who had prior knowledge of or experience with open committee hearings. The large scale of contacts and exchanges between Lithuania and the United States was a distinct advantage. Contrary to the customary practice of holding a celebratory reception after the event, it was decided to bring key participants and counterparts together two days prior to the Program. This helped generate interest and momentum, and build personal contacts.
7) Increase media involvement.
Goals: Hold a press conference to prepare the media for the open hearing, and encourage the media to play a greater role in promoting parliamentary transparency.
A press conference outlining the Program was held on December 7. The main goal was to brief the press on the Program and open hearing. A press kit was distributed (Appendix E). The press has a vital role in informing citizens about parliamentary practices. It is hoped that newspapers will regularly devote space to publicity for/coverage of future open committee hearings.
8) Ensure wide attendance, and address security issues.
Goals: Invite all appropriate parties, and arrange for their access to the Seimas (security passes).
The List of Participants included all of the numerous parties having an interest in the open hearing. It was presented to security officials at the Seimas two days in advance, in order to obtain the necessary passes. While security is extremely important, excessive security procedures can present an obstacle to public access and participation. It is important to find a balance.
VI. DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS ON DECEMBER 9
The Plenary Session was hosted by Seimas Vice-Chairman Dr. Feliksas Palubinskas, an advocate of strong and open parliamentary process. It was opened by Seimas Chairman Vytautas Landsbergis. The focus of the main presentation by Dr. Rundquist was the importance of parliamentary transparency for democratic legislative functions. Dr. Rundquist traced the evolution of legislative openness in British, American, and continental legislative traditions, specifically citing the differences in practices among the countries covered, and frankly discussed both the advantages and disadvantages of openness. A second presentation was made by Edwin Rekosh, Director of the Public Interest Law Initiative of Columbia Law School. Mr. Rekosh kindly offered to serve as a panelist/co-presenter at the Program. He discussed the need for information from a broad range of sources to strengthen legislative processes, and how this is accomplished in various democratic countries.
The presentations were followed by a question-and-answer session. Although it reduced the level of spontaneity and interaction, questions were solicited during the coffee break and submitted in writing. This ensured quantity, quality, and brevity. Subjects included the different types of open hearings, the role of lobbyists in the development of legislation, the different means by which NGOs can participate, the process by which witnesses are selected for public hearings in the United States and other countries, and the role of political parties in committee hearings.
An informal buffet luncheon in the Seimas Cafeteria, next to the conference room, allowed MPs, staff, NGO representatives, donors, the media, and other participants to mingle and discuss the event. This format is preferable to a sit-down lunch, which restricts interaction and takes longer.
The open hearing took place right after lunch. About half of the Committee MPs participated. More than one hundred people were in the audience, about evenly divided between officials, and representatives of civil society and donors. The major television stations made films. The hearing began with an opening statement from the Chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee, Mrs. Elvyra Kuneviciene. According to the Agenda and the Guidelines, the first witnesses were representatives of the Ministry of Social Security and Labor and the Ministry of Finance, both members of the legislative drafting group. They were to be followed by representatives of the NGO Center and the Lithuanian Free Market Institute (non-official members of the legislative drafting group), and the four NGO representatives. The Agenda is at Appendix F.
Unfortunately, there was a long moment of uncomfortable silence after the opening statement. Both of the Ministry representatives, despite their commitment to the goals of the Program and civil society development, had been unavoidably delayed at the meeting of the Council of Ministers. It may have been a good idea to specify in the Guidelines or briefings that if a witness is not present, the next person on the list moves forward. Anyway, Vaidotas Ilgius, Director of the NGO Center (witness number four) stepped forward. The Ministry representatives arrived shortly thereafter, and testified when Mr. Ilgius finished. They were followed by Mr. Remigijus Simasius and the four NGO representatives. There was a lively exchange of questions and answers following the prepared statements. The Chairperson allowed other MPs present in the audience to come forward and ask a few questions, as permitted under the Guidelines. This added to the positive atmosphere. The hearing lasted almost three hours. After a coffee break, the floor was opened to all members of the audience to make brief comments about the draft law. About a half-dozen people took advantage of this opportunity. The idea of having an open microphone had been raised in the briefings, and was a nice touch. This was followed by a candid evaluation of the exercise, lasting twenty minutes. The visiting/participating delegation of MPs from Kazakhstan also made a statement, and expressed interest in holding a similar exercise in their own country.
The Program was very positively evaluated. The presentation and consultations provided by Dr. Rundquist were universally praised. The combination of informative presentations and a practical exercise was characterized as "brilliant" by Dr. Palubinskas, and found most helpful by virtually all participants. The opportunity to testify in public was welcomed as much by ministry officials, who appreciated the novel dynamic and chance to publicize their work, as by NGO representatives, who were proud to speak out. In the future though, a panel format may be used to ensure that questions are directed to the right witness (for example, ministry officials together). Many members of the audience expressed a desire to testify in the future. The written evaluations, filled out by half of the audience, were overwhelmingly favorable. There were public promises by MPs to hold more open hearings, including the law on income taxation. Committee staff expressed willingness to repeat the exercise, pending a decision by the MPs. The Seimas Information Department promised to supply briefing materials for future open hearings, and maintain a general file on the subject. And there was extensive and positive coverage on television news programs.
Debriefing sessions were held with all the main participants. This was done to solicit their views concerning the hearing, consider how it might have been improved, and evaluate the prospects for future similar exercises. Despite the novelty of some aspects of the work, and the large amount of effort required in a very short period of time, there was almost no criticism concerning of the arrangements. Among the proposals for future cooperation were technical assistance and practical information for the next hearings, more materials like rules from other jurisdictions, informal consultations concerning topics of special interest to Committee staff members, support for inter-parliamentary initiatives to further legislative transparency, and information concerning other possible forms/uses of committee hearings (oversight, investigative, and confirmation purposes).
A large debt of gratitude is owed to all of the Lithuanian counterparts mentioned in this Article. USAID appreciates the assistance of (in alphabetical order) the American Bar Association-CEELI Program, the Center for Law and Democracy, the Congressional Research Service, the Columbia Law School Public Interest Law Initiative, the NGO-Information and Support Center, the Open Society Fund-Lithuania, the United States Information Service, and World Learning. Special mention should be made of the devotion and major contribution made by USAID Democracy Program Assistant Irena Kibickaja.
CALENDAR/CHECKLIST
Before the event:
- Establish contacts with parliamentary representatives on policy and implementation levels.
- Negotiate Memorandum of Understanding, for official support.
- Choose suitable draft law, and monitor its progress (if not already before the Parliament).
- Conduct assessment of legislative practices, as part of needs analysis.
- Search for/select lead experts and panelists.
- Collect materials for diverse counterparts and open hearing. Arrange translations.
- Determine the subjects to be covered in the plenary session (comparative practices, lobbying, media, pros and cons).
- Arrange technical details (room selection, layout, recording/transcripts, etc.).
- Contact law schools/universities for student assistants or interns.
- Set up donor round table.
- Arrange schedules for experts.
- Prepare invitations (one set each for the plenary session and open hearing).
- Amongst the guests should be officials, donors, NGOs representatives, diplomats, the media, etc.
- Arrange for necessary security passes.
- Prepare Agendas for plenary session and open hearing.
- Organize reception, prior to event.
- Schedule press conference and briefing.
- Prepare evaluation forms.
At the event:
- Registration of participants and distribution of materials.
- Final checks to ensure room set-up.
- Buffet luncheon.
- Distribute and collect evaluation forms.
After the event:
- Hold debriefing sessions.
- Prepare hearing book with transcript of testimony and copies of written statements.
- Send thank you letters to all counterparts.
- Discuss, distribute and follow-up on recommendations for future activities.
- Prepare Final Report
GUIDELINES FOR SEIMAS OPEN HEARING
- Quorum. It is not necessary to have a quorum at Open Hearings if no official action is taken.
- Opening Statement. The Chairperson of the Committee shall have the right to make a brief opening statement.
- Procedural Issues. The Chairperson of the Committee shall be empowered to make a ruling concerning procedural issues which arise during the Open Hearing, subject to appeal to the full Committee, which may over-rule the Chairperson by a majority vote. In the case of a joint Open Hearing involving two Committees, the ruling shall be made either by both Chairpersons, or the one which has been designated as leader for that part of the Open Hearing, subject to appeal to all Committee Members present.
- Participation. All Members of Parliament may attend Open Hearings. Those who are not Committee Members can ask questions either by submitting them in advance, or if recognized for that purpose by the Chairperson.
- Testimony. The final identification of witnesses who will testify, the final determination of the order of testimony, and whether witnesses will testify alone or as part of a panel, will be determined by the Chairperson of the Committee, or by both Chairpersons in the event of a joint Open Hearing, after full consultation with Committee Members and other appropriate parties. Additional witnesses will be scheduled if they are requested by no less than one-third of the Committee Members.
- Public Announcement. The location and exact time of the Open Hearing shall be announced by the Chairperson of the Committee no less than one week in advance thereof. The identity of witnesses at the Open Hearing and the order of their testimony shall be announced by the Chairperson of the Committee no less than three working days in advance thereof.
- Testimony. The order of witnesses should generally be: first, representatives of ministries which have taken a leading role in drafting the legislation, followed by members of the Working Group which has drafted the law, followed by Members of Parliament who wish to testify, followed by acknowledged experts or representative of interested organizations (selected on the basis of importance, expertise, and diversity of viewpoint).
- Testimony. Each witness will be allotted a maximum of ten minutes to present his/her testimony.
- Questions. Each Committee Member shall have a maximum of five minutes for questions and answers with each witness.
- Questions. Committee Members will be allowed to question witnesses in order, based upon their seniority on the Committee, with the Chairperson having the right to either go first or last.
- Testimony. The Chairperson shall have the power to limit the testimony and question/answer session of any one witness to an overall total of forty-five minutes, in the interest of ensuring that all scheduled witnesses have an opportunity to testify. In such cases, the witness may be called back at the end of the Open Hearing, or be given the chance to answer additional questions in writing.
- Time Management. The Seimas Chancellory will be responsible for stenography, taking minutes, and designating an individual who will monitor/track the time taken by each witness.
- Time Management. The Committee Chairperson will be empowered to enforce all time limits, as monitored by the designee of the Seimas Chancellory.
- Decorum. No interruptions of Members of Parliament will be allowed, except by the Chairperson, in the event of expiration of a time limit, or if necessary to maintain order. Witnesses can only be interrupted by the Committee Member questioning them or the Committee Chairperson.
- Decorum. The Chairperson of the Committee shall have the right to exclude any individual who is acting in such an unprofessional manner as to disrupt the Open Hearing.
- Written Statements. Any interested party shall be entitled to submit a written statement, provided that they comply with all requirements concerning format and length, and with all procedures for submission.
- Written Statements. Written statements shall be no more than five pages long, double spaced, with a one-page cover sheet that clearly states the law or subject matter being commented upon and the professional background and contact information of the author. A copy on computer disc should be submitted if possible.
- Written Statements. Written Statements shall be submitted directly to the Chairperson of the Committee holding the Open Hearing.
- Written Statements. Written Statements shall be submitted/received by the Chairperson no less than 48 hours before commencement of the Open Hearing.
- Written Statements. All witnesses who testify shall present a written statement, except for Members of Parliament, or in cases where the Chairperson decides otherwise.
- Hearing Record. The Hearing Record shall consist of a verbatim transcript of the entire proceedings, plus all written statements, plus any other relevant materials presented at the Open Hearing which are approved for inclusion by the Chairperson.
- Hearing Record. The Hearing Record should be available two days before the draft law is scheduled for final consideration by the Committee.
- Hearing Record. The Hearing Record should be available to all interested parties. It should be free of charge to Members of Parliament and individuals who testify, and for a nominal fee representing the costs of copying to others.
- Hearing Record. The testimony presented at an Open Hearing, and copies of any written statements submitted in electronic form, shall be made available on the Seimas internet site.
- Delegation. The Chairperson shall have the power to delegate responsibilities to another Committee Member in the event of necessity. This will be done after consultation with all Committee Members.
TESTIMONY BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
BY MARK SEGAL
OFFICE OF DEMOCRACY, USAID/LITHUANIA
ADVANCE PREPARATIONS
- Understand the purpose of the hearing. It is extremely important to understand what the committee MPs are looking for, and why they are holding the hearing. What are the legal issues, and what are the positions of the key players? Further, what are their motivations? Relevant information can be obtained from the invitation or announcement for the hearing, public statements, party platforms, and public documents. The most effective testimony is that which answers the questions which the MPs want answered.
- Consult with officials such as committee staff in advance of the hearing. Contacts with committee staff in advance of the hearing can yield valuable information concerning which issues are most important and to whom, the personalities and political considerations involved, the identity of other witnesses, guidelines/format for the hearing, and how to communicate most effectively. No attempt should be made to intrude into confidential or internal parliamentary matters. However, much of this information should legitimately be shared by the committee staff. After all, they have an interest in making the hearing efficient and relevant for the MPs.
- Prepare a written summary of live testimony in advance. Generally, written summaries of testimony must be submitted to parliamentary committees before the hearing. If not, such summaries may still be very useful to MPs at or even after the hearing. Even if not formally submitted, they help the speaker prepare to testify, by organizing thoughts and focusing testimony to improve advocacy.
- Written comments should be concise, precise, and well organized. Simplicity, brevity, and clarity are necessary. Organization is key. It should be easy to determine at a glance what the writer sees as the main problems, and the most effective solutions. State the position being advocated, and explain why. The introduction should be short, and express the author’s position. Bullet points and tightly written phrases should cover the main positions. Details, when necessary, should be separated into attachments. Use bold print to highlight key phrases with compelling data and conclusions. Use concrete facts, but make sure that they are summarized and highly accurate. It is also acceptable to use illustrative examples, but they should be on point and not distract the reader.
- Be sure to comply with all administrative requirements. All committee guidelines concerning the format and timing of oral testimony and written submissions should be followed. All rules and procedures for testimony should be understood and adhered to. If there are any doubts, ask.
PRESENTING TESTIMONY
- Think first and foremost about the audience, and how they perceive you. The witness is much like an actor on stage, but with a very special audience and a very concrete message. All aspects of communication should be carefully considered. This includes, dress, manner, body language and facial expressions, tone of voice, eye contact, etc. Speak clearly, be assertive without being overbearing, and be animated and enthusiastic enough to maintain interest. Avoid technical language and jargon, and use examples and imagery if appropriate. Avoid the use of "gimmicks" and planned jokes. Be sure to adjust the style of testimony to the characteristics of the MPs and the chairperson.
- Be thoroughly familiar with the contents of the testimony. Rehearse the testimony until every point is known by heart. It should be possible to give the testimony without any written notes. Avoid reading anything longer than a quote or passage. A one-page summary/outline with key points in large type can be used for organizational purposes, and to prevent the witness from losing his/her place. Avoid leafing through pages at all cost. Know how long the statement will take, and just how much lee-way there is. Avoid going off on tangents. One of the most common mistakes witnesses make is wandering off-track and getting behind in timing.
- Utilize audio-visual materials sparingly and with care. It can be cumbersome and time-consuming to set up and use audio-visual aides. "Technical difficulties" can disrupt the hearing and create a negative impression. Be very attentive to logistical issues. A multicolored chart handed to each MP may be a better approach.
- Prepare for an effective dialogue, and use the statement to set the stage for it. A major part of advocacy in open hearings is effectively answering the questions which are presented. A cogent and forceful statement, which is precise and brief, can provoke serious questions, which enable the witness to sway opinions. It is a good idea to anticipate and prepare for the questions in advance. Listen very carefully to the questions, and respond concisely and on-point. Leave room for follow-up questions. If uncertain about the answer to a question, say so, or give the parameters for the answer, without being overly equivocal. As all good salespeople know, it is the substance and tone of questions/objections which reveal exactly what must be done to convince the customer. Be sure to make eye-contact when answering questions.
- Arrive at the hearing early. Use the time to talk to any officials who may be available. Be sure to attend the testimony of prior witnesses, to hear what they have to say. It may be necessary to refer to prior testimony. If so, this should be done in a respectful manner. Listen carefully to the questions which are asked to prior witnesses, for clues into the thinking of the MPs.
FOLLOW-THROUGH AFTER THE HEARING
- Post-hearing procedures can also be extremely important. It may be necessary to submit additional information, or to answer supplementary questions presented in writing. Be prepared to promptly review the hearing transcript, if this is allowed. Follow the progress of the legislation after the hearing. Do not be afraid to contact committee staff members for their appraisal of how things went, for future benefit.
CONCEPT PAPER: SEIMAS-USAID PROGRAM ON OPEN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
INTRODUCTION: Since re-gaining independence, Lithuania has made great progress towards establishing a democratic state based upon the rule of law, and a free market economy. In order to achieve this, several thousand new laws have been passed by the unicameral Parliament (Seimas). One important factor influencing these laws has been relatively limited access to the legislative process on the part of the governed. Increased access to the Seimas is crucial for enhancing transparency and the effectiveness of legislation, and consolidating Lithuanian democracy.
CURRENT SITUATION: Only certain individuals, such as members of legal working groups, experts known to committee leaders, officials, and lawyers in the Legal Department are able to regularly provide input concerning proposed legislation. Input takes place in an ad-hoc fashion, at the committee level. There are few systematic mechanisms for the participation of representatives of civil society and business, or outside experts. However, the Seimas Statutes are being amended to increase the power of committees and provide for more regular access via open hearings. Also, political leaders are calling for greater citizen involvement in the legislative process. The Program is being carried out pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with Seimas Vice-Chairman Kubilius.
OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAM: To institutionalize and systematize legislative procedures which include regular input from the governed (live testimony, written comments and expert opinion).
STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM: The Program, which takes place on December 9, 1998 consists of two components: a morning plenary session for the entire Seimas, and an actual open committee hearing concerning the Law on Charity and Sponsorship in the afternoon. The plenary session, for MPs and Seimas and ministry officials, will a) introduce participants to the importance and benefits of greater citizen access to the legislature, b) summarize the procedures for open hearings in other democratic countries, c) discuss the basic steps/stages in the process, including how public participation is structured and facilitated, and d) discuss how open hearings might be institutionalized in Lithuania. The open hearing, conducted by the Seimas Committees on Budget and Finance, and Social Affairs and Labor, concerns the Law on Charity and Sponsorship. It is a concrete example of how such events are conducted, and enables testimony from experts and civil society representatives on the Law on Charity and Sponsorship. Also, it increases understanding of the legal framework for NGOs, and how legal problems can impede civil society development.
CONSULTATIONS: Technical assistance and briefings are being provided to all of the parties involved with the open hearing. These consultations are designed to facilitate this and future similar endeavors. Materials provided include practical guides to open hearings, organic documents covering this subject in sample jurisdictions, and comparative summaries of legislative practices in other democratic countries. Additionally, assistance is being given to NGOs, concerning how to participate in the legislative process and be more effective advocates. These various consultations, and future assistance as requested, will facilitate the new procedures specified in the revised Seimas Statutes.
LAW ON CHARITY AND SPONSORSHIP: This law classifies the types of support businesses can provide to NGOs, and defines public benefit. Related issues include tax benefits and supervision.
COOPERATING DONOR INSTITUTIONS: The Program is being implemented by USAID and World Learning, in cooperation with the NGO-Information and Support Center. Support is also being provided by the Open Society Fund-Lithuania. Other cooperating institutions (in alphabetical order) include ABA-CEELI, the Congressional Research Service, EU-PHARE, USBF, USIS, etc.
PRESS RELEASE
"Seimas-USAID Program encourages public discussion at the Parliament"
On December 9, the Seimas will hold a Seminar on Open Legislative Process, and the first Open Committee Hearing, to allow input from the public concerning the Law on Charity and Sponsorship. Paul Rundquist of the US Congressional Research Service in Washington D.C., an organization providing expert support to the US Congress, and a consultant to many parliaments around the world, will lead the morning seminar for the entire Seimas. This will be followed in the afternoon by a public discussion about the Law on Charity and Sponsorship, conducted by the Seimas Committees on Budget and Finance, and Social Affairs and Labor.
A Press Conference about the upcoming Seminar and Open Hearing will be held at the Seimas on Monday, December 7 at 9:00. Participants include Andrius Kubilius, Vice-Chairman of the Seimas, Mr. Paul Rundquist, and USAID/Lithuania Deputy Mission Director Christine Sheckler.
The public discussion about the Law on Charity and Sponsorship is very important for all of Lithuania’s non-profit organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The current law discourages charitable contributions to non-profit organizations, making it very difficult for these organizations to become financially sustainable. The revised law, which removes these barriers, is going to be submitted to the Seimas, and forms the basis for the public discussion.
USAID and its partner organizations World Learning and the NGO Information and Support Center, have worked closely with MPs at the Seimas to organize this Seminar and first Open Hearing. Open Hearings are very important because they provide the public more access to government, and give parliamentary deputies a wider range of opinions to use in legislating effectively, while making the legislative process more transparent. It is hoped that this first Open Hearing will serve as an example for the new and open procedures provided under the revised Seimas Statutes, and that the Seimas will conduct regular Open Hearings similar to those held by parliaments in many other democracies.
SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
AND LABORCOMMITTEE ON BUDGET
AND FINANCE
JOINT OPEN COMMITTEE HEARINGON THE DRAFT LAW ON CHARITY AND SPONSORSHIP
AGENDA
9 DECEMBER 1998
- 13:30 Opening Statement by Chairperson Kuneviciene.
- 13:40 Testimony by Witnesses, Questions and Answers.
- 16:00 Coffee Break, Meeting with Press (timing tentative).
- 16:30 Continuing Testimony by Witnesses (as necessary).
- 17:30 Conclusion and Review.
The following individuals have been invited to testify:
- Vilija Blinkeviciute, Ministry of Social Security and Labor (Member of Working Group).
- Rimantas Vaicenavicius, Ministry of Finance (Member of Working Group).
- Remigijus Simasius, Lithuanian Free Market Institute (Member of Working Group).
- Vaidotas Ilgius, NGO-Information and Support Center (Member of Working Group).
- Romualda Navikaite, Lithuanian Save the Children Fund.
- Viktoras Morozovas, Kaunas Region Small and Medium Size Enterprise Association.
- Liucija Stulgiene, Lithuanian Music Support Fund.
- Zenonas Buivydas, Lithuanian Christian Fund.
The Committee Hearing will be conducted in accordance with the published Guidelines.
Witnesses will have ten minutes for an opening statement, followed by five minutes of Questions and Answers from each Committee Member, up to a maximum of forty-five minutes in total.
Everything said at the Committee Hearing will be transcribed verbatim. The transcript, with all written statements submitted in advance, will be published in a Hearing Booklet and placed on the Seimas internet site.
ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARDS OPEN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN LITHUANIA
On March 17, 1999, the Committee on Budget and Finance of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania conducted an Open Hearing on the Law on Mandatory Insurance for Vehicle Owners and Drivers. The Hearing was supervised by the legislative drafting group and several MPs. More than two-dozen representatives of NGOs and independent institutions presented testimony and engaged in a lively exchange of ideas concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the draft law, and how it would affect everyone from agricultural workers to pensioners to insurance companies.
The format and procedures were similar to the first Open Hearing on the Law on Charity and Sponsorship for NGOs (December 1998), which was part of the Seimas-USAID Program on Open Legislative Process. However, this Hearing, and several others currently planned, are purely Lithuanian initiatives. These developments show how theoretical knowledge and practical experience gained from the USAID sponsored Program have contributed to significant and lasting moves towards opening the legislative process in Lithuania.
 |
|||
Last Updated on: June 25, 2009 |
