Boostrapping : RWE.02 - Jury System to reduce wasterful expenditure
Proposed administrative procedure - RWE.02
Jury System   to   reduce   wasteful   expenditure   in   State   Govt
Purpose : To reduce nexusproness in supervision of expenses, and thus reduce wasteful expenes, in State Govt.
Pre-requisite reading : Why Jury System is superior than judge system
- Existing procedures to cut wasteful expenditures
- Why do MLAs fail?
- Proposed improvement - RWE.02
- Is RWE.02 fair from money reciever's point of view
- Advantages of RWE.02
- Draft of the act to create procedure RWE.02
Existing procedures in State Govt to reduce wasteful expenditures
The CM, Ministers and MLAs are supposed to review the expenses on a periodic basis, along with an annual budget. In addition, there are auditors appointed by CM as well as Central Govt. Despite all these MLAs and auditors, the wasteful expenses are increasing day by day.
Are MLAs and audiotrs doing a good job in in reducing wasteful expenditures?
No. The MLAs and auditors are NOT doing ANYTHING to reduce wasteful expenditure.
The auditors do not have any powers to block an expense --- they can merely write comments and reports on expense AFTER that expense is done. And such comments are lost in the ocean of comments and reports.
So auditors do NOT have any powers to block wasteful expenses. Then who has powers to block expenses? The powers are in the hands of the
Are they doing the job of reducing wasteful expenditures? NO. There are 100s of examples to prove it. Instead of citing examples, I will just give a brife description of causes and cite an administrative proposal to reduce the wasteful expensditure.
- The CM
- The Ministers
- The MLAs
Why have MLA etc failed to reduce wasteful expenditures?
The reasons are usual
In short, MLAs have NO motivation to reduce expenses, nor they have time to do it. They would rather let the officers do whatever they want, and then do whatever they want.
- The CM/Ministers and MLAs have nexuses with Corporation staff --- the staff will provide several unofficial favors to MLAs/Ministers in return the Ministers/MLAs keep quite.
- The MLAs are too busy managing their money/investments, 10s of businesses they own, managing 10s of charitable trusts they run and executing 10s of requests from the officers, contractors, criminals etc they have nexuses with.
Proposed improvement - RWE.02 : Jury System over Expesnes of State Govt
I have drafted a procedure for controlling expenses made by Ministers/officers of the State Govt :
- The CM will appoint a JA (Jury Administrator) for each district or assign the responsibilities to an existing JA.
- The JA may use the existing Grand Jurors or he will randomly select 30 citizens from the neighboring Districts as the Grand Jurors.
- If any officer of the State Government wants to pay for ANY expense except the "Exempted Expenses" listed later, he MUST submit Expense Information Record to the Treasurer in State's Capital. The Treasurer will cut the check ATLEAST 3 months AFTER the Expense Information Record is submitted.
- The Expense Information Record will have following details - Date on which payment is to be done, Amount, Name of the Recipient, PAN-ID of the Recipient, if the recipient is a company then PAN-IDs directors/owners of the company and date on which goods were supplied or service was provided. The Treasurer will make this information public within 7 days after he recieves it by placing it on his web-site.
- If an individual has proofs that a perticular project involved corruption or that a perticular expense is wasteful, he can present the complaint before the Grand Jurors. The Grand Jurors will randomly select a District, and the complainer will present the evidences and arguments to that District's Grand Jury. If over 15 Grand Jurors declare that the complain has some truth in it, JA will randomly choose 12 citizens from the neighboring District to review the expense and payment.
- If over 8 out of 12 Jurors, after listening to the arguments of both sides, declare that the expense was indeed wasteful or it involved corruption/irregularity, they can order the State Finance Minister to cancel the payment. Alternatively, the Jurors may only approve a part of the payment instead of canceling it or approving whole amount.
- The Finance Minister will order the Treasurer NOT to pay that expense, or only pay a part as directed by the Jurors.
- If over 8 Jurors ask the JA to investigate the officer, then JA will call 12 citizens chosen at random and ask them to investigate the officers' motivations behind the expenses. If over 8 out of 12 Jurors declare that the Jurors is misfit, the Mayor would expel taht officer within 24 hours.
- The Ministers will explicitly mention each vendor who is providing a service to the Departments of State Govt that the vendor will NOT get any payment if Jurors cancel it. Only the vendors who have faith in Jurors should fill the tenders. All State Govt tenders and contracts should have 3 explicit conditions - "subject to delay, cancellation or reduction by Jurors" , "final arbitration by Jurors ONLY" and "no crying/contest before any judge".
- If a judge interferes and asks the Finance Minister to pay the expense that the Jurors have cancelled or reduced, the Minister will ask the JA to call 12 Jurors to review the judge’s order. If over 8 out 12 Jurors declare that the judgement is unconstitutional, illegal and against the Interest of the Nation, the Minister will resign or disobey the judge’s order. Otherwise, the Minister may obey the judge.
- Only following expenses will be paid without 3 month delay --- telephone bills, electricity bills, salaries (including allowances) below Rs 5000/mo and expenses put by policemen if marked as emregency. Thus if an officer’s salary is above Rs 5000/mo, he will ONLY get Rs 5000 in that month and he will get the remaining salary after 3 months. In between, the Jurors may cancel or reduce the payment of his remaining salary.
Is this procedure fair from money reciever's point of view?
Yes. For reasons, please see here.
Advantages of RWE.02
- Gives a much much LESS nexusprone procedure to decide if an expense was wasteful or not, and should be blocked or not.
- Gives a much faster, yet fairer, procedure to decide if the officer's (who is executing an expense) should be expelled or not.
Draft of the act to create procedure RWE.02
To enact RWE.02, the citizens would need to pass an act in the State Assembly. I have written that draft. To look at the draft, please click here.
It will be wiser for citizens to first enact procedure LM.02, and then use LM.02 to pass this act. To know about procedure LM.02, please click here.
If you have any other question, please mail it to MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com. Thousand thanks in advance.
Next - RWE.03 - Redecing wasteful expenses in Central Govt