PSPD in English Archive 2001-07-31   1081

Tax Payers’ Movement

Tax Payers’ Movement

Lee Tae-Ho (PSPD)


Since PSPD launched its ‘Freedom of Information Action Group’ in 1998 it has continued the budget misuse monitoring movement by taxpayers. The PSPD taxpayer initiative called Sunshine Project is comprised of two parts; the freedom of information movement, and the budget misuse monitoring movement.

1. Freedom of Information Movement

This movement aims at enhancing the transparency and accountability of public organizations by making use of the right to demand freedom of information according to the Freedom of Information Act. The movement started with the launch of the Freedom of Information Action Group in 1998, and its activities consist of three parts: freedom of information claim initiatives regarding matters of public interest, education and promotion initiatives that help citizens make use of the freedom of information system, and research and critique and reform of the current freedom of information system.

1) Planned Claim for Freedom of Information

Disclosure of Expediency Fund Movement

Expediency fund refers to what is generally known as ‘activity promotion expenses.’ Its somewhat abstract purpose is to promote efficient processes and encourage employees and is mainly used for entertainment purposes such as dining. Budget accounts such as these do not seem to exist anywhere else except for Japan. Because of its regulations with regard to its purpose or to supporting documents such as receipts are ambiguous or non-existing, it is one of the items where the user of the account is reluctant to reveal the details of its use.

In November 1998, the PSPD requested the disclosure of information on the use of the expediency fund by the Mayor of Seoul. However the City responded with its non-disclosure policy, and the PSPD filed a lawsuit requesting the annulment of such a non-disclosure decision. In November 1999, the City of Seoul announced that it would disclose a part of its expediency fund use, but it failed to give a detailed description of who used the fund or of how many people were entertained through it. The City of Seoul requested withdrawal of the lawsuit on the grounds that it had disclosed part of the expediency fund use. However the PSPD made it clear that this request could not be accepted and continued the lawsuit. As a result, in May 2001 the Higher Court of Seoul ruled that the City should disclose all details of the expediency fund use. The lawsuit is currently pending in the Supreme Court.

Since the PSPD launched its freedom of information movement, claims and lawsuits for the disclosure of expediency funds have followed in other areas. Aside from the City of Seoul, PSPD has demanded the disclosure of expediency funds from 25 local districts and public offices. However, the 25 local offices decided to maintain their non-disclosure policy, and among government agencies, the main offices in charge of government budget, such as the Ministry of Government Affairs and Home Administration, Ministry of Planning and Budget, Ministry of Finance and Economy, have opted for a non-disclosure or partial disclosure policy. A lawsuit demanding the annulment of these decisions is pending. Local citizen groups have also joined this movement, and in June 2000 more than 30 groups formed a national disclosure of expediency fund movement network.

In addition, upon the request of local citizen groups, a few local governments have started to disclose the content of such expenditures. However, a look at the disclosed content reveals that most of the expenditure has been made for meetings with individuals such as local government officials, police, local assembly members, press personnel and other local authorities. Further, in most cases expenditure requests existed without any receipts verifying the use of the money or vice versa. It was also evident that documents were forged or newly produced for the purpose of disclosure.

Disclosure of Conference Records Movement

This movement aims at disclosing conference records that were taken at policy decision conferences attended by high level government officials (above the vice-minister level). After the 1997 financial crisis, public hearings (February 1999) were held trying to hold relevant officials accountable for their mistakes. However, a lack of such public records proved to be a serious obstacle to fulfilling this task. To date conference records are neither kept nor maintained by government offices.

Since December 2000, the PSPD has been conducting a conference record disclosure movement to enhance the transparency and accountability of the governments policy-making procedure. Conference records are often categorized into disclosable/non-disclosable information. Especially when it comes to sensitive agendas that have been at the center of national attention, government officials have taken the liberty of subjecting the records to a non-disclosure policy. For instance, when the PSPD requested the disclosure of conference records in the case of the reemployment of a local education official who was discharged for corruption, the request was denied on grounds of protection of privacy.

The conference records are not only held confidential, but often they are not even kept at all. Since the Public Record Maintenance Act was enforced in 2000, conference records and transcripts have become mandatory for conferences attended by high level government officials (above the Vice-Minister level). However, one year and a half after this act has been put into force there are not many offices that abide by the new rules. The disclosure of conference record movement aims at requesting the disclosure of conference records that should have been kept since the enactment of this new regulation in 2000, and thereby intends to look at the current situation of public record keeping and maintenance by government offices.

The PSPD is in the process of preparing an evaluation report of the current state of conference record disclosure, and is also considering legal measures against the heads of government offices such as the Ministry of Government Affairs and Home Administration and Government Records Bureau that are mainly in charge of public record-keeping.

2) Publication of Freedom of Information Manual and White Paper

Because the use of the freedom of information system has been minor, the PSPD has published a citizens manual called Guide to Claiming your Freedom of Information in order to inform citizens about its existence and enforcement. Published in February 1999 this booklet not only introduces concrete ways and means of demanding freedom of information, but provides information on which offices should be contacted to claim freedom of information, what to do when certain information have been subjected to non-disclosure policy, and how to pursue legal actions to meet this response. This information will help citizens with the many difficulties that they experience in claiming their freedom of information.

3) Reform of the Freedom of Information system



Research on the Operation of the Freedom of Information System

Since 1999, the PSPD has published annually an evaluation report of the status of Freedom of Information in government agencies. The Freedom of Information system only has a short history of 3 years and 6 months, and government officials have a very shallow understanding of the right of citizens to claim Freedom of Information. Especially, since the colonial times under Japanese rule, the bureaucratic culture within the government has caused such claims to be neglected or encouraged non-disclosure policies. Research and survey of the operation of the Freedom of Information system intends to change this reality.

In 1999 the PSPD has requested the disclosure of conference records and lists of main documents according to the Freedom of Information Act, and conducted research on the status of Freedom of Information in each government department. During this process the PSPD checked how well the list of public documents was organized, if the office had a window for registering freedom of information claims, if there was staff to deal with this agenda, and if registration and processing of the claims was documented. Based on this thorough investigation, the PSPD selected the best and worst cases.

In 2000 this activity was expanded to 114 local governments around the country, and 34 local organizations have jointly conducted research activities. The 2000 survey focused around two main issues: status of freedom of information in the case of expediency funds, and status of operation of freedom of information. In 2001 the survey will mainly focus on the status of disclosure of conference documents, and assess the level of commitment to freedom of information by each government agency.

System Reform Movement

1) Freedom of Information Amendment Movement

The PSPD is in the process of drafting a proposal for the amendment of the Freedom of Information Act in cooperation with 34 organizations participating in the national disclosure of expediency funds network, and plans to submit the proposal during the extraordinary session of the National Assembly in June 2001.

The current Freedom of Information Act has such a broad criteria for information that is to be regulated according to the non-disclosure policy that it makes it difficult for citizens to gain access to necessary information. Information that is regulated by non-disclosure policy are divided mainly into four parts: those harming national security, those related to privacy, the profit-making activities of corporate foundations, and agenda under investigation or a lawsuit in process. The government uses these ambiguous criteria to reject disclosure of information, so the current act does not have the legal capacity to prevent the deliberate application by government agencies.

On the other hand, the current Freedom of Information Act regulates that the process of freedom of information should not extend beyond 30 days. This period is longer than necessary and in the case of a non-disclosure decision appeals or administrative rulings are not processed effectively. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that systematic support to ensure the impartiality and objectivity in the reevaluation of such reappeals is lacking. Also, it has been suggested that the freedom of information processing fees (copying charges) are too high, so that civic groups, who are the main users of the system in claiming their rights, are heavily burdened. It is suggested that processing fees for freedom of information for public interest purposes should be reduced.

2) Freedom of Information — Amendment Movements regarding the Right to Know

Aside from the activities described above, the PSPD is continuing its activities to improve the transparency of the government and relevant systems by investigating, for example, Public Record Maintenance Laws, and Laws for Electronic Government. Further, in response to the current trend of including information non-disclosure regulations in certain acts to prevent the disclosure of information according to the Freedom of Information Act, the PSPD is also trying to conduct amendment movements for excluding such non-disclosure regulations from certain acts.

2. Budget Monitor Movements

The PSPD has expanded the Freedom of Information Project team to its Taxpayers Movement since 2000. Separate from the Freedom of Information Action Group, it has strengthened monitoring activities of budget misuse. Whereas the Freedom of Information Action Group focuses mainly on improving freedom of information and record-keeping as well as the transparency and accountability of government, the Budget Misuse Monitor Group investigates cases of budget misuse and draws the public”s attention to these cases, thereby enabling citizens to recollect misused funds.

1) Planned Budget Monitoring Activities

Disclosure of Expediency Fund Movement (See above for details)

Monitoring Budget Misuse by Local Governments

This activity mainly focuses on monitoring expenditures made by local government where budget misuse is suspected, by way of claiming citizens” right for freedom of information. Aside from expediency funds, PSPD monitors donations or supporting funds for social organizations, civilian facilities, publication of newsletters, promotion

activities, and events and festivals that local governments sponsor and organize. PSPD in particular monitors budget misuse of the City of Seoul by actively claiming citizens” rights for freedom of information.

Further, the PSPD analyzes and evaluates budget reports of local government. It tries to assess the overall budget size of the general accounting budget, special accounting budget, funds, and public companies, and analyzes and evaluates the items that are prone to budget misuse. In cooperation with other civic organization, the PSPD plans to analyze the budget report of the City of Seoul and organize a public hearing this coming November.

Monitoring Overseas Training Programs by Local Assemblies

As a sub-unit of the Taxpayers” Movement at the PSPD, the citizen budget monitor group is actively engaging in monitoring activities. Comprised of members of the PSPD, this group was launched in June 1999. It has conducted research on overseas training programs by local assembly members in the 25 districts of Seoul. The group has published annual evaluation reports with regard to misuse of the national budget. In 1999 and 2000 the monitoring team requested disclosure of information on the itinerary and expenditure of these overseas training programs and a close analysis revealed that these overseas visits were actually for mere entertainment purposes.

The total amount that was used for overseas programs during their term of 4 years in office was approximately 15 billion Won (equivalent of US $11.5 Million). Rather than being used for overseas policy research purposes, the expense were made for tourism and entertainment. The citizen monitor group has sent out public surveys and requests to cancel the allocation of such funds and also continued efforts in cooperation with a few reform-minded assembly members to organize meetings and hearings with the purpose of reforming unnecessary overseas training programs.

Monitoring of Public Funds and Special Accounting Budget

Aside from its budget monitoring activities PSPD plans to launch a project team in the latter half of 2001 that will monitor the necessity of government operated funds (National Pension Fund, Employment Insurance Fund, Private Education Promotion Fund) and special taxes (education taxes, special taxes for agriculture and fisheries).

2) Taxpayers” Legal Procedure Code and System Reform Movement

It is well known that the introduction of a system that can help citizens recollect funds misused by public organizations or private entities under contract with these organizations is effective in preventing the reoccurrence of such misuse and strengthens citizen participation. The False Claim Act in the U.S. or Residents” Legal Procedure Code in Japan are good examples.

Since November 1999 the PSPD has been conducting a movement for the establishment of a taxpayers” legal procedure code (Budget Misuse Prevention Law), based on which citizens can directly take legal action on behalf of the government to recollect misused funds. This bill has been signed by 67 organizations and was submitted in December 2000 to the National Assembly. Also, Assembly Member Lee Joo-young has taken separate action in February 2001 and proposed it to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly.

정부지원금 0%, 회원의 회비로 운영됩니다

참여연대 후원/회원가입


참여연대 NOW

실시간 활동 SNS

텔레그램 채널에 가장 빠르게 게시되고,

더 많은 채널로 소통합니다. 지금 팔로우하세요!