Key Benefits:
(Adopted by the 13th ordinary meeting of the Government of the Hasahama on 21 September 2007 (Act No. 174 of 25 September 2007 by the People's Government Order No. 174 of 25 September 2007) Article 1, in order to fully advance the administration of law, strengthens administrative responsibilities, prevents and reduce administrative mismanagement, enhances administrative effectiveness and efficiency, develops this approach in accordance with the relevant provisions of the People's Congress and Local Government Act, the National People's Republic of China Administrative Monitoring Act, the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China and the Provisional Resignment of the Party's Leading Department. Article 2, which states that the executive body is responsible for leading accountability, means that the principal holder of the commune government (hereinafter referred to as the executive organ) is not in compliance with or incorrectly performing the statutory duties, resulting in the inefficiency, chaotic order, inefficiency and inefficiency of the executive branch, impairs the legitimate rights and interests of the public interest and the administration, has questioned and held responsibility in accordance with this approach. This approach refers to the sectors of the commune government, which are owned by the communes, the institutions administered by the commune branch of the commune government, the executive branch of the coordinating body, the immediate treasury unit of the city's government with administrative functions, and the government of the city. Article 3. This approach applies to the accountability of the main holder of the commune, district (market) government or the Deputy Head of the Presidency (hereinafter referred to as administrative leadership). Article IV. The executive leadership should strictly perform its duties under the laws, regulations and the responsibilities conferred by the municipal people's Government under the law, seriously complete all the work of the communes' government, exercise self-sensitization and strict compliance with the law. Article 5. This approach is organized by the municipal administration inspection department. Article 6 has one of the following cases in the executive branch and should be accountable for its administrative leadership: (i) The failure to complete the tasks assigned by the Government of the city as scheduled; (ii) Inadequate implementation of the decision-making and deployment made by the superior authorities in accordance with the law, giving public interest, the relative legitimate rights and interests of the administration, the serious loss of State property or an impact on the deployment of the Government as a whole; (iii) In violation of the provisions of decision-making, there has been a significant error in decision-making; (iv) The creation or application of administrative licences, administrative penalties, administrative expenses or administrative coercive measures in violation of the law, which have adverse social consequences or serious consequences; (v) The establishment of a regulatory regime for the sound security of work and the development of emergency preparedness cases for sudden public incidents, in accordance with the relevant provisions and requirements; (vi) In the event of a retroactive public incident, false reports, late reports, or in the absence of timely, proper, effective handling and organization of relief efforts, in accordance with the relevant legal provisions; (vii) Inadequate regulation of public safety, safe production, or when it is found that no measures have been taken to deal with or to take measures that have occurred or have adverse social consequences; (viii) Illegal intervention in market economic activities, regulation of disruptions of market economic order, or condonment and shelter; (ix) Excluding, retaining, crowding or misappropriating funds earmarked for financial purposes and government funds; (x) Significant errors in determining the existence, design, construction and production of basic construction projects; (xi) In violation of the provision for the use of financial funds, State assets, resulting in waste of funds or loss of State assets; (xii) Other circumstances that cause serious harm to public interest, the legitimate rights and interests of the administration or the adverse social impact due to negligence, mistreatment; (xiii) Inadequate functioning in the sector, poor quality of services and a strong public reflection; (xiv) Failure to resolve and improve the mass reflecting a strong problem in a timely manner, triggering incidents of group sexuality or misinding the disposal of group-specific events, affecting social stability; (xv) Disadvantages in decision-making resulting in administrative proceedings or changes in specific administrative acts in administrative review to the State resulting in losses; (xvi) No decision of the People's Court of Justice in administrative cases, decisions or administrative inspections, audit departments, administrative review bodies. Other acts outside this approach, causing serious consequences or adverse social impacts, should be held accountable for administrative leadership and accountability under this approach. Article 7. (i) A breach of a provision to disclose the secret or secret work of the State; (ii) The use of unpublic information available to work for the benefit of themselves or relatives; (iii) Intrusion of the present administrative body, intrusion of the offence and intrusion of the offence; (iv) Applicate, refer to leave or obstruction, intervention, anti-monitoring or case screening, as well as to cases of misconduct, prosecution, prosecution, prosecution and proof against retaliation. The executive leadership has other acts outside this approach, causing serious consequences or adverse social impacts, and should be accountable for administrative leadership. Article 8. The municipal administration inspectorate found that the administrative organs and administrative leadership had the circumstances of article VI, Article 7, or, in accordance with the following information of accountability, could make recommendations to the Mayor for accountability proceedings initiated by the Mayor; the Mayor found that the executive organs and administrative leadership had the option under article 6, paragraph 7, or, according to the following circumstances, may decide to initiate accountability procedures: (i) Complaints, alleged material with relevant material of evidence by citizens, legal persons or other organizations; (ii) Directions and instructions from the superior leadership; (iii) Accountability recommendations made by representatives of the human person, members of the political union; (iv) Accountability recommendations made by the trial and prosecution authorities; (v) Accountability recommendations from sectors such as auditing, government rule of law, government administration, etc.; (vi) Sectoral work appraisal results or performance assessment results; (vii) Materials exposed by the media; (viii) The Deputy Mayor and the Secretary-General's recommendations on accountability; (ix) Other material reflecting the existence of accountability in the sector or administrative leadership. After the start of the accountability process, the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor may entrust may entrust the administrative leadership to be responsible for reporting on the situation and entrust the municipal administration inspection department with verification. Article 10. The municipal administration inspectorate shall be established, in accordance with the instructions of the Mayor, and shall conduct investigations in accordance with the competence and procedures set out in the National People's Republic of China Administrative Monitoring Act. Sectoral and administrative leadership surveyed should be accompanied by positive measures to correct wrongs or to change undesirable situations, recover losses and reduce adverse impacts. Article 11. The members of the Investigation Group should be avoided by law, in the interest of the administrative leadership to be held accountable. In the course of the investigation, the administrative leadership to be held accountable shall make a written statement to the Investigation Group. The relevant departments and personnel should be assisted in the investigation work of the Investigation Group. The administrative leadership to be held accountable will obstruct or intervene in the investigation process, which may be brought to the Government of the city to suspend the administrative leadership functions to be held accountable in accordance with the relevant provisions. The verification process shall be completed within 30 working days and shall submit a written investigation report to the Mayor. The investigation reports should include specific facts, basic conclusions and specific recommendations on accountability. Article 14. The Investigation Group shall check the facts identified by the investigation with the administrative leadership of the investigation, and shall adopt the reasonable opinions of the administrative leadership investigated and, where necessary, supplement the investigation; and provide a factual basis for the survey's administrative leadership. The administrative leadership of the investigation should sign opinions on factual material, reject the opinion, as indicated by the investigation team in the material of fact. When the Mayor has received an investigation report, it should be submitted within 15 working days to the Standing Committee of the People's Government to discuss, make accountability or decision not to be held accountable. The Standing Committee of the People's Government decided to hold accountable for the administrative leadership to be held accountable, in writing, by the municipal administration inspectorate, and to inform them of their right to review and review applications. Article 16 Accountability for administrative leadership and accountability by: (i) Removal of deadlines; (ii) A written inspection order; (iii) To inform criticism; (iv) Adjustment of jobs; (v) Resignation of the order; (vi) Recommended degradation or dismissal. The manner in which the responsibility for this paragraph is vested in may be applied either individually or jointly. The application of subparagraphs (iv), (v) and (vi) of this article is responsible for the management of authority and procedures established. The executive leadership in the situation of accountability in article 17 is blamed for the resignation of the accountability process and is no longer held accountable under this approach. Other responsibilities should be held in accordance with laws, regulations and regulations. The responsible administrative leadership is suspected to be administratively disposed of in violation of the law, which is dealt with by the administrative inspectorate in accordance with the relevant provisions and procedures; is suspected to be in violation of the party's disciplinary inspectorate; and is suspected to be transferred to the judiciary. Article 18 provides for accountability or non-responsibility for administrative leadership, and is informed by the municipal administration inspectorate, in writing, of the relevant organs or individuals that have proposed accountability. Article 19 The accountability executive leadership is not in a position to decide on accountability and may apply for review to the Government of the city within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the decision. Article 20 may authorize the municipal administration to submit a review report within seven working days, upon receipt of a review request by the Government of the people of the city, and to submit a review report within 20 working days. Article 21 mayors make the following decisions, based on review or review reports: (i) The facts of the original investigation report are clear, the evidence is clear and the original accountability decision continues; (ii) The underlying facts of the original investigation report are clear and the underlying evidence is clear, but the circumstances are biased and the manner in which accountability can be changed; (iii) The original investigation reports have a significant error and the decision to put an end to accountability. Article 2 abuses by investigators, provocative fraud, and insecure of duty, leading to a significant error in the investigation report, shall be administratively disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the National People's Republic of China's Administrative Monitoring Act and the competent authority of the Ministry of the Interior, which constitute a crime and are criminally criminalized by law. Article 23, after accountability for administrative leadership in accordance with this approach, may be taken into account in the light of the accountability situation caused by the sub-office of the executive branch or by the conduct of the office (rooms), heads of government departments or staff in the district (markets). Article 24 allows the Government of the communes and districts, districts (communes) to take into account this approach and to hold accountability for the heads of institutions within the sector and the sectors to which the Government belongs. Article 25 |
