Open Parliamentary Committee Hearings in Lithuania
By Mark Segal; USAID/Lithuania
January, 1999
I. FORWARD
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.
Back to Top
II. INTRODUCTION
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.
Back to Top
III. STRUCTURE
OF THE PROGRAM
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.
Back to Top
IV. PRECONDITIONS
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.
Back to Top
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.
Back to Top
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.
Back to Top
VII. FOLLOW-UP
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).
Back to Top
VIII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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.
Back to Top
APPENDIX A
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
Back to Top
APPENDIX B
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.
Back to Top
APPENDIX C
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.
Back to Top
APPENDIX D
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.
Back to Top
APPENDIX E
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.
Back to Top
APPENDIX F
SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
|
COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS
AND LABOR
|
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET
AND FINANCE
|
JOINT OPEN COMMITTEE HEARING
ON 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.
Back to Top
POSTSCRIPT
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.
Back to Top
|
