As standing regulations and formal operational procedures, government ministries, authorities, commissions and agencies are required to deliver quarterly, biannual and annual performance reports to the House of Peoples’ Representatives (HPR).
Performance reports to be delivered to the HPR in principle perfectly synchronize with activity plans of each government organ. Another important point is the fact that reporting to the HPR is virtually means reporting to the peoples of Ethiopia.
Given the level and scope of corruption and bad governance that had prevailed in the country over the last two decades, most of the reports submitted to the HPR were marked by high level of public skepticism.
Reports submitted to the House are normally indicative of activities accomplished by government institutions within a given span of time.
Now the first question is who decides or verifies whether a report from a government institution is authentic, truthful and objective? The primary responsibility, of course, rests on the public institutions and their leadership who in most cases are supposed to defend the content of their reports.
The performance reporting style and formats used by government institutions vary from one organization to the other. Depending upon the general functions and their legal mandates, public institutions are legally accountable for the reports they submit to the HPR or the executive for that matter.
The principal objective of reports delivered by government bodies is to create a spirit of accountability and stewardship towards planned activities and monitor and evaluate the pace of national development activities.
Reports presented to the HPR are also meant to promote transparency about activities of government bodies. The level of clarity of the reports and the quality of their contents must clearly indicate shortfalls that need to be addressed and success stories that need to be intensified and replicated by others.
In view of such worthiness, recent findings and court cases filed against a number of public agencies like the METEC and the sugar projects have casted doubts on the authenticity of official reports presented to the HPR. This compels one to suspect that some public institutions are preparing separate reports for the HPR and one other for internal consumption.
It is very interesting to note the huge discrepancy between the financial and performance audit reports periodically presented by the Auditor General and general reports issued by public institutions like public universities.
While reports from the Auditor General show a gross misappropriation of government fund by major government institutions and while these reports indicate gross violations of financial laws and regulations of the country, no meaningful measures have so far been taken by the HPR or the executive. A gross miscarriage of stewardship is visible in the country but no level of rectification is in sight by concerned government bodies.
Reports are meant to ensure accountability and stewardship on the performance of public institutions and what they have done with the resources allocated for them.
The peoples of Ethiopia in general and the taxpaying communities in particular are not informed on what is being accomplished with the funds they have contributed.
It is true that the reports submitted to the HPR are in most cases televised live but would that be enough to justify transparency and accountability? What is the opinion of the public on these reports? Or is the voice of the public and their opinion and comments at grassroots being heard and duly considered?
Reports are useful to chart out future operational directions organizations and to make a contingent of possible remedies for shortcomings organizations may face.
On the other hand, false and vague reports that blur the cause and effect relationships of unaccomplished activities are usually misleading and could lead to wrong conclusions.
In report writing for any government institution, simplicity and illustrations are some of the virtues that need to be considered. However, simplicity does not in any way mean compromising accuracy.
In the context of HPR, government institutions usually deliver performance reports on formal and scheduled hearings or through occasional field visits by members of standing committees of the House.
One of the best qualities of a good report is the logical sequence of narratives between previous reports and the current one. If the current report contradicts with the previous report delivered to the HPR, this might not just be a simple error or omissions of facts but a major shortfall that may need proper action.
Honesty and transparency in reporting is not only criteria for standard ethical services but also an element of legal accountability required on the part of public service providers.
The House does not listen to official reports of government ministries and other institutions just for the sake of formality. The House is legally entitled to ensure accountability on the part of government institutions. For one thing, this can be done by verifying the authenticity of reports presented to them.
What are the standard requirements of the HPR regarding the quality of reports submitted by government bodies? Here, there should be a certain level of standards and indicators that are to be fulfilled if a report is to be submitted to the HPR.
It is obvious that each government institution prepares its regular reports for the HPR based on its specific areas of operation and reporting standards. But still there should be a generic reporting format with minimum requirements for all government bodies.
Reports are based on the state of planned activities that are already approved by government institutions which in most cases operate on budget earmarked for each government ministry, authority of agencies. These reports are expected to show the exact relationship between budget allocated and activities preformed during the specific period.
False reporting is not a simple error. In fact it is a crime punishable by law. Even false reporting through the media outlets is also punishable. But one should be able to verify high level reporting to be delivered to the legislative body of the country and a fake news report in any media.
Reports from public institutions are considered as official source materials for research, documentation and news writing. For instance, yearbooks that used to be distributed by the Government Communications Affairs Office for almost a decade had been depicting the development pace of the country, basic achievements of the nation through years and the challenges thereof.
Reports presented to the HPR by government institutions are also useful for monitoring the overall performance of government bodies both at federal and regional levels. Such reports are useful for decision making both at the legislature and executive levels.
One important practice that the HPR has been conducting is related to public invitations on parliamentary hearings, when federal ministries and other government bodies present their reports to the House. The HPR has always attempted to ensure transparency by officially inviting citizens and institutions to forward their questions to the standing committees.
At any rate, the House should take all the necessary measures to ensure trustworthy, reliable and accurate reports’ delivery. Because, such reports are one of the best indicators of the pace the country makes in the political and socio-economic spheres.
FEBRUARY 1/2019
BY SOLOMON DIBABA
As standing regulations and formal operational procedures, government ministries, authorities, commissions and agencies are required to deliver quarterly, biannual and annual performance reports to the House of Peoples’ Representatives (HPR).
Performance reports to be delivered to the HPR in principle perfectly synchronize with activity plans of each government organ. Another important point is the fact that reporting to the HPR is virtually means reporting to the peoples of Ethiopia.
Given the level and scope of corruption and bad governance that had prevailed in the country over the last two decades, most of the reports submitted to the HPR were marked by high level of public skepticism.
Reports submitted to the House are normally indicative of activities accomplished by government institutions within a given span of time.
Now the first question is who decides or verifies whether a report from a government institution is authentic, truthful and objective? The primary responsibility, of course, rests on the public institutions and their leadership who in most cases are supposed to defend the content of their reports.
The performance reporting style and formats used by government institutions vary from one organization to the other. Depending upon the general functions and their legal mandates, public institutions are legally accountable for the reports they submit to the HPR or the executive for that matter.
The principal objective of reports delivered by government bodies is to create a spirit of accountability and stewardship towards planned activities and monitor and evaluate the pace of national development activities.
Reports presented to the HPR are also meant to promote transparency about activities of government bodies. The level of clarity of the reports and the quality of their contents must clearly indicate shortfalls that need to be addressed and success stories that need to be intensified and replicated by others.
In view of such worthiness, recent findings and court cases filed against a number of public agencies like the METEC and the sugar projects have casted doubts on the authenticity of official reports presented to the HPR. This compels one to suspect that some public institutions are preparing separate reports for the HPR and one other for internal consumption.
It is very interesting to note the huge discrepancy between the financial and performance audit reports periodically presented by the Auditor General and general reports issued by public institutions like public universities.
While reports from the Auditor General show a gross misappropriation of government fund by major government institutions and while these reports indicate gross violations of financial laws and regulations of the country, no meaningful measures have so far been taken by the HPR or the executive. A gross miscarriage of stewardship is visible in the country but no level of rectification is in sight by concerned government bodies.
Reports are meant to ensure accountability and stewardship on the performance of public institutions and what they have done with the resources allocated for them.
The peoples of Ethiopia in general and the taxpaying communities in particular are not informed on what is being accomplished with the funds they have contributed.
It is true that the reports submitted to the HPR are in most cases televised live but would that be enough to justify transparency and accountability? What is the opinion of the public on these reports? Or is the voice of the public and their opinion and comments at grassroots being heard and duly considered?
Reports are useful to chart out future operational directions organizations and to make a contingent of possible remedies for shortcomings organizations may face.
On the other hand, false and vague reports that blur the cause and effect relationships of unaccomplished activities are usually misleading and could lead to wrong conclusions.
In report writing for any government institution, simplicity and illustrations are some of the virtues that need to be considered. However, simplicity does not in any way mean compromising accuracy.
In the context of HPR, government institutions usually deliver performance reports on formal and scheduled hearings or through occasional field visits by members of standing committees of the House.
One of the best qualities of a good report is the logical sequence of narratives between previous reports and the current one. If the current report contradicts with the previous report delivered to the HPR, this might not just be a simple error or omissions of facts but a major shortfall that may need proper action.
Honesty and transparency in reporting is not only criteria for standard ethical services but also an element of legal accountability required on the part of public service providers.
The House does not listen to official reports of government ministries and other institutions just for the sake of formality. The House is legally entitled to ensure accountability on the part of government institutions. For one thing, this can be done by verifying the authenticity of reports presented to them.
What are the standard requirements of the HPR regarding the quality of reports submitted by government bodies? Here, there should be a certain level of standards and indicators that are to be fulfilled if a report is to be submitted to the HPR.
It is obvious that each government institution prepares its regular reports for the HPR based on its specific areas of operation and reporting standards. But still there should be a generic reporting format with minimum requirements for all government bodies.
Reports are based on the state of planned activities that are already approved by government institutions which in most cases operate on budget earmarked for each government ministry, authority of agencies. These reports are expected to show the exact relationship between budget allocated and activities preformed during the specific period.
False reporting is not a simple error. In fact it is a crime punishable by law. Even false reporting through the media outlets is also punishable. But one should be able to verify high level reporting to be delivered to the legislative body of the country and a fake news report in any media.
Reports from public institutions are considered as official source materials for research, documentation and news writing. For instance, yearbooks that used to be distributed by the Government Communications Affairs Office for almost a decade had been depicting the development pace of the country, basic achievements of the nation through years and the challenges thereof.
Reports presented to the HPR by government institutions are also useful for monitoring the overall performance of government bodies both at federal and regional levels. Such reports are useful for decision making both at the legislature and executive levels.
One important practice that the HPR has been conducting is related to public invitations on parliamentary hearings, when federal ministries and other government bodies present their reports to the House. The HPR has always attempted to ensure transparency by officially inviting citizens and institutions to forward their questions to the standing committees.
At any rate, the House should take all the necessary measures to ensure trustworthy, reliable and accurate reports’ delivery. Because, such reports are one of the best indicators of the pace the country makes in the political and socio-economic spheres.
FEBRUARY 1/2019
BY SOLOMON DIBABA
As standing regulations and formal operational procedures, government ministries, authorities, commissions and agencies are required to deliver quarterly, biannual and annual performance reports to the House of Peoples’ Representatives (HPR).
Performance reports to be delivered to the HPR in principle perfectly synchronize with activity plans of each government organ. Another important point is the fact that reporting to the HPR is virtually means reporting to the peoples of Ethiopia.
Given the level and scope of corruption and bad governance that had prevailed in the country over the last two decades, most of the reports submitted to the HPR were marked by high level of public skepticism.
Reports submitted to the House are normally indicative of activities accomplished by government institutions within a given span of time.
Now the first question is who decides or verifies whether a report from a government institution is authentic, truthful and objective? The primary responsibility, of course, rests on the public institutions and their leadership who in most cases are supposed to defend the content of their reports.
The performance reporting style and formats used by government institutions vary from one organization to the other. Depending upon the general functions and their legal mandates, public institutions are legally accountable for the reports they submit to the HPR or the executive for that matter.
The principal objective of reports delivered by government bodies is to create a spirit of accountability and stewardship towards planned activities and monitor and evaluate the pace of national development activities.
Reports presented to the HPR are also meant to promote transparency about activities of government bodies. The level of clarity of the reports and the quality of their contents must clearly indicate shortfalls that need to be addressed and success stories that need to be intensified and replicated by others.
In view of such worthiness, recent findings and court cases filed against a number of public agencies like the METEC and the sugar projects have casted doubts on the authenticity of official reports presented to the HPR. This compels one to suspect that some public institutions are preparing separate reports for the HPR and one other for internal consumption.
It is very interesting to note the huge discrepancy between the financial and performance audit reports periodically presented by the Auditor General and general reports issued by public institutions like public universities.
While reports from the Auditor General show a gross misappropriation of government fund by major government institutions and while these reports indicate gross violations of financial laws and regulations of the country, no meaningful measures have so far been taken by the HPR or the executive. A gross miscarriage of stewardship is visible in the country but no level of rectification is in sight by concerned government bodies.
Reports are meant to ensure accountability and stewardship on the performance of public institutions and what they have done with the resources allocated for them.
The peoples of Ethiopia in general and the taxpaying communities in particular are not informed on what is being accomplished with the funds they have contributed.
It is true that the reports submitted to the HPR are in most cases televised live but would that be enough to justify transparency and accountability? What is the opinion of the public on these reports? Or is the voice of the public and their opinion and comments at grassroots being heard and duly considered?
Reports are useful to chart out future operational directions organizations and to make a contingent of possible remedies for shortcomings organizations may face.
On the other hand, false and vague reports that blur the cause and effect relationships of unaccomplished activities are usually misleading and could lead to wrong conclusions.
In report writing for any government institution, simplicity and illustrations are some of the virtues that need to be considered. However, simplicity does not in any way mean compromising accuracy.
In the context of HPR, government institutions usually deliver performance reports on formal and scheduled hearings or through occasional field visits by members of standing committees of the House.
One of the best qualities of a good report is the logical sequence of narratives between previous reports and the current one. If the current report contradicts with the previous report delivered to the HPR, this might not just be a simple error or omissions of facts but a major shortfall that may need proper action.
Honesty and transparency in reporting is not only criteria for standard ethical services but also an element of legal accountability required on the part of public service providers.
The House does not listen to official reports of government ministries and other institutions just for the sake of formality. The House is legally entitled to ensure accountability on the part of government institutions. For one thing, this can be done by verifying the authenticity of reports presented to them.
What are the standard requirements of the HPR regarding the quality of reports submitted by government bodies? Here, there should be a certain level of standards and indicators that are to be fulfilled if a report is to be submitted to the HPR.
It is obvious that each government institution prepares its regular reports for the HPR based on its specific areas of operation and reporting standards. But still there should be a generic reporting format with minimum requirements for all government bodies.
Reports are based on the state of planned activities that are already approved by government institutions which in most cases operate on budget earmarked for each government ministry, authority of agencies. These reports are expected to show the exact relationship between budget allocated and activities preformed during the specific period.
False reporting is not a simple error. In fact it is a crime punishable by law. Even false reporting through the media outlets is also punishable. But one should be able to verify high level reporting to be delivered to the legislative body of the country and a fake news report in any media.
Reports from public institutions are considered as official source materials for research, documentation and news writing. For instance, yearbooks that used to be distributed by the Government Communications Affairs Office for almost a decade had been depicting the development pace of the country, basic achievements of the nation through years and the challenges thereof.
Reports presented to the HPR by government institutions are also useful for monitoring the overall performance of government bodies both at federal and regional levels. Such reports are useful for decision making both at the legislature and executive levels.
One important practice that the HPR has been conducting is related to public invitations on parliamentary hearings, when federal ministries and other government bodies present their reports to the House. The HPR has always attempted to ensure transparency by officially inviting citizens and institutions to forward their questions to the standing committees.
At any rate, the House should take all the necessary measures to ensure trustworthy, reliable and accurate reports’ delivery. Because, such reports are one of the best indicators of the pace the country makes in the political and socio-economic spheres.
FEBRUARY 1/2019
BY SOLOMON DIBABA
