Advanced Search

Guiyang City Executive Heads Of Executive Accountability Procedures (Trial Implementation)

Original Language Title: 贵阳市行政机关行政首长问责办法(试行)

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.

(Summit of Hygiene on 25 April 2005 to consider the adoption of Decree No. 3 of 31 May 2005 by the Government of the Hygiene People, which came into force on 1 January 2006)

Article 1 enhances administration, prevents and reduces administrative mismanagement, enhances administrative effectiveness, and develops this approach in line with the relevant laws, regulations.
The application of this approach is governed by the executive heads of the executive organs, such as the communes, the communes (communes), the communes (communes) and all levels of government.
This approach refers to the executive head's accountability, which means that the head of the executive branch does not perform or is incorrectly discharging its statutory responsibilities, resulting in the inefficiencies, destabilization, inefficiency or damage to the public interest, the relative legitimate rights of the executive branch, or that the executive head ends, causes adverse social consequences, which have been questioned and held accountable by the people at the highest level.
This approach refers to the Government's constituent units of all levels of the people's government, the immediate agency, the office, the dispatch agency, the ad hoc body and other business units with administrative functions.
Article 3. The executive heads of the executive organs shall strictly exercise their duties under the law, the regulations and the responsibilities conferred by the Government of the High-level People under the law, carefully complete the work of the Government of the High-level People, strictly in accordance with the law, to accept oversight and to fully serve the people.
Article IV. The Government of the city is responsible for the accountability of the Government of the People's Republic, the executive heads of the urban government, and for the accountability of the executive heads of the government at this level, the town.
Article 5
(i) The inefficiencies of implementation, rendering political orders open or affecting the deployment of the Government as a whole;
(ii) The delay in public emergencies, such as natural disasters, accidents, and the inference of precidents, the failure to take the necessary measures in a timely manner to deal effectively, or the seizure of critical public emergencies by reporting, retreating and late reporting;
(iii) Blind decision-making in violation of the statutory procedures, resulting in serious adverse political impacts or major economic losses:
A major construction project decision-making has resulted in significant economic losses;
2 Explanatory arrangements for the use of financial funds, the waste of State assets or the loss of State assets;
The adoption of administrative coercive measures by law triggers social instability.
(iv) Disadvantaged governance, inadequate oversight, or other grave consequences:
The normative documents developed are incompatible with the superior law or the superior policy, which undermines public interest or the relative legitimate rights of the administration;
2 Inadequate administrative performance, hard work attitudes, poor quality of services and a strong reflection by the public;
Inadequate oversight leads to abuses by organs and staff, provocative fraud and leading, negligence, gross violations at the level of misconduct, misconduct or miscarriage of administrative law;
4 Violations of the administration of justice, resulting in specific administrative actions by administrative organs and their staff in violation of the law;
5) Discussed staff of the charging organs for falseness, forfeiture or for unlawful and disciplinary activities;
6 Oriental staff are lawful, intrusive or condoned.
(v) Damage to the image of the Government or caused significant economic losses in business activities;
(vi) Expression of expression that undermines the image of the Government on an open basis or the failure of conduct to the prosecution point, putting an end to impunity, undermining the image of civil servants and causing adverse social impacts;
(vii) Other situations in which the Government of the city considers to be responsible.
Article 6. Modalities for accountability:
(i) Removal of merit and prequalification for the year;
(ii) To caution;
(iii) To inform criticism;
(iv) Conduct the annual work target award;
(v) A written inspection order;
(vi) To make public apologies available to society through the main local media;
(vii) Susion of positions of anti-status;
(viii) To persuade them to resign.
In the manner set out in the preceding paragraph, it may be either single or otherwise. In that regard, the decision to suspend the office of the head of office or to persuade it to give rise to the decision of resignation should be determined by the competent authority and the procedures for exemption under the administration of the Ministry of the Interior, either in writing to the HC or the relevant organ.
Any unit and individual found that the executive head of the executive branch had one of the conditions set out in article 5 of this approach and had the right to report, complain to the Government of the city, the district, and the city.
The Government of the urban, district, and district (market) should establish the executive heads responsible for the administration, composed of the Government's rule of law, supervision, inspection services (hereinafter referred to as the ombudsman), to establish the telephones and make public the society public.
Article 8
The receipt by the receiving body of accountability reports, the complaint material should be sent to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for review by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on a timely basis. There is a need for further investigation and investigation by the inspectorate in accordance with the procedures set out in the National People's Republic of China Administrative Monitoring Act. Due to the complexity of the case, the duration of the review was to be extended, and the delegation requested the Head of the Government to approve the review period of 15 days.
The review of cases of accountability confirms the economic, leading, etc., and the relevant sectors such as audit, confidentiality should make written observations in accordance with the time period requested by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for review of the period of confirmation).
Article 9. Accountability reports received by the receiving body and complaints materials are not admissible by the current people's Government and shall be transferred to the Government of the people entitled to receive information within 5 days of the receipt of the material.
The Government of the communes, districts (communes) is inadmissibility of accountability reports, complaints materials that fall within the scope of their receipt, and is subject to corrective action by the communes or directly to the Government of the city.
The executive heads of the administrative organs surveyed should, while receiving the investigation, take positive measures to correct errors, avoid or minimize losses and recover adverse impacts.
The findings should be communicated in writing to the executive heads of the administrative bodies surveyed by the inspection department to the end of the investigation and to the extent that they have the right to make statements and the right to be heard.
Following the review of accountability cases confirming the completion of the work, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should make recommendations to address:
(i) The executive head of the executive branch shall make recommendations to the Government to put an end to accountability without conditions or circumstances under article 5 of this approach;
(ii) The executive head of the executive branch of the executive branch has one of the circumstances of article 5 of this approach and should draw the Government's accountability to the executive head of the administrative body and make recommendations on the way in which accountability is to be held.
The Head of Article 12 of the Government decides not to be held accountable under the investigation report and the receiving body shall communicate the findings of the investigation and the Government's decision in writing to the executive heads of the administrative organs surveyed.
In accordance with the survey report, the Head of Government decided to hold responsibility in accordance with article 6 of this approach, the Office of the Ombudsman should be tasked with bringing the findings and the recommendations into the collective discussion of the municipal government.
The executive heads of the administrative organs surveyed may make presentations and pleas at the seminar.
In accordance with the discussions at the Conference, the Municipal Government decided to hold responsibility, by written notification by the receiving body to the executive head of the responsible administrative body and to inform the review and review of the application.
Article 14. The executive head of the responsible administrative body may apply for review to the Government of the people who have taken a decision of accountability within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the decision.
The Head of Government decides to review and, in accordance with the contents of the review request, the office may be tasked with submitting a review report within seven working days, or the other composition of the investigation team, and to submit a review report within 20 working days.
During the review and review period, the decision to hold accountability may be suspended.
Under review or review reports, the Head of Government made the following decisions:
(i) The facts of the original investigation report are clear, the evidence is clear and accountability decisions continue to be implemented;
(ii) The facts of the original investigation report are clear and the underlying evidence is clear, but the circumstances are biased and change the manner in which accountability is held;
(iii) The original investigation reports have a significant error to put an end to the decision to hold accountability.
The executive heads' accountability decisions taken by the communes, districts (markets) government should be reported to the commune. Accountability decisions were wrong, and the communes, the communes (communes), which were decided by the junction of the city's people, were rectified or cancelled by the municipal people's Government.
Article 17, the executive head of the executive branch has one of the circumstances in which article 5 of this approach is alleged to be unconstitutional and is dealt with by law by the inspectorate; the alleged offence is transferred to the judiciary.
The investigation and case handling of the former paragraph shall be reported in writing to the Government.
Article 18 is subject to warning, serious warning or inspection authority warning, serious warning, excessive, systematic and degradable administrative authority, and the Government may decide to hold its responsibilities in accordance with article 6 of this approach.
Article 19 abuses by organs and their staff, in favour of private fraud, incentivism, and insecure, have led to the identification of a significant error in the report and should be administratively disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the National People's Republic of China Administrative Monitoring Act.
Article 20, paragraph 1 (b), of this approach refers to criticism, education by the head of the Government that has taken a decision of accountability to the executive heads of the responsible administrative organs and the provision of time-bound corrections requirements.
Article 21, this approach is implemented effective 1 January 2006.