88
5.4. HOW TO SELECT A GOOD MONITOR The monitor selection process is as relevant as the qualities of the monitor himself. If the selection process is not accountable and transparent, even the work of a very good monitor may be undermined. The selection process brings legitimacy to the monitor. There is no standard process for selection, but it is recommended that you take the following points into consideration: a) The accountability and transparency of the selection process Different factors influence the accountability and transparency of the monitor selection process: » The existence of predetermined criteria or a profile » The degree of openness of the selection process » Who is in charge of taking the decision » The availability of information about the final choice and the grounds for the decision The selection process does not necessarily have to be an ‘open call’ (i.e. a public competitive selection process). The selection of the monitor is what lawyers call intuitu personae, i.e. the selection is closely tied to the individual capabilities and characteristics of the monitor and the trustworthiness he projects to the different stakeholders. The open call therefore may not be the best way to obtain the best monitor. The selection process also depends on the type of monitoring system. For example, when the collective or mixed system is used, the selection process is no more than a consensus among the main stakeholders and participants. Whatever the procedure is, being able to explain and communicate why a monitor was chosen and the way the decision was taken is important for the accountability of the process.
» TIP 18
Successful experiences of IPs implemented by TI chapters are often linked to their active role in monitor selection.
Water Integrity Network & Transparency International 2010
CASE BOX 30 Monitor selection In Schönefeld Airport, the monitor was chosen together by FBS and TI-Germany from a shortlist proposed by both. The choice was announced by FBS in the media and reported by TI-Germany. See press release in German: www.berlin-airport. de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2005/pd0905.html In La yesca and El Cajón, the monitor (SW) was designated by TM, which he represented in performing its duties. TM designates the SW following a rigorous selection process. The SW cannot be a member of TM’s staff and is specifically appointed for each process. The individual should have experience in the sector to which the specific IP applies, so that he is capable of contributing not only to the process but also to the substance, inputting to the drafting of the bidding documents and during the contracting procedure. Since the legal reform of 2004, the SFP designates the SW who will operate in each individual case from a list of previously registered SWs. The same regulation stipulates that when those chosen are not individuals but legal entities (such as TM), they are in charge of designating an actual individual who will act as SW. TM was the first SW to register under the SFP registry in 2005.
b) Accountability of the monitor The monitor performs a role that directly affects all stakeholders involved in the contracting process, but also affects citizens and communities, who should benefit from a public project free of corruption. The monitor is therefore not only accountable to those selecting him. Ensuring broader accountability is another guarantee of the monitor’s independence. The monitor performs his role differently from other service providers. Normally it is understood that accountability and the responsibilities for the fulfilment of a role are to the party with whom an agreement is signed (see ‘5.5. The monitoring agreement’, page 90). But because an IP is a collaborative effort and the function of the monitor is of public interest (given their role in government projects), the monitor’s accountability is to all participants, as well as to society at large.