Increase citizen involvement in the Government Audit Office’s work (FR0102)

What is the public problem that the commitment will address? The 2008 constitutional reform entrusted the Government Audit Office with a public information duty. Article 15 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which established the financial courts, had long provided for that “[s]ociety has the right to require of every public official an account of his administration”, thus making the transparency of information one of the Office’s core missions. The Government Audit Office today enjoys broad public approval thanks to both its position as a renowned institution and its work: Nearly 90% of French people surveyed are familiar with it, of which 80% view it favourably and 72% say that they trust it. Growing interest in its various media channels also demonstrates its prominence, with the number of unique visitors to its website increasing from 640,000 in 2013 to 2.5 million in 2020, while correspondence sent to the financial courts (the Government Audit Office and the CRTCs, or Local Government Audit Offices) jumped 80% over the same period. The Office has a better reputation than its foreign counterparts, which tend to have less direct interaction with their citizens. Continuous efforts must be made to maintain these ties and expectations in that regard are high. Some 84% of respondents to an OpinionWay survey conducted during the financial courts reform project, known as JF 2025, said they would like to have the opportunity to contribute to the Office’s work programme. This survey shows that citizens not only want information to be made available (with this being a major focus of financial courts for decades); they also seek to have a participatory role.

What is the commitment? The Government Audit Office is committed to attracting more citizen input to advance its work. As part of the JF 2025 strategic reform, the Office has set itself the goal of increasing its engagement with citizens by more closely involving them in its work, taking into account their input on the work programme and the development of a new methodology for assessing the quality of public services, and facilitating their collaboration by introducing new digital resources.

How will the commitment contribute to solving the public problem? To strengthen the Government Audit Office’s relations with citizens, it seeks to: 1. experiment with giving citizens the right to request the inclusion of subjects in the Office’s work programme. Given that the freedom to plan work is a central component of financial courts’ independence, the courts can address citizens’ concerns and meet their expectations by granting them the opportunity to shape the Office’s work programme. For example, it will trial an initiative allowing citizens to bring up issues concerning audits and evaluations, which will subsequently be incorporated into its work programme. 2. develop a new audit component for assessing the quality of public services by trying out new methods of collecting feedback from citizens. Through its strategic reform plan, the Government Audit Office has also set itself the goal of setting up and organising a new audit component focused on user insight and their assessment of the quality of public services. Although the Office increasingly strives to take this issue into account and it has been addressed by public policy developments, it has been inconsistently applied in audit and investigation processes. As a result, the Office is looking to find new methods of collecting feedback from citizens. 3. create a platform for collecting reports from citizen whistleblowers. As the survey results above show, citizens are readily reporting infractions to financial courts. The next step is to create a platform to modernise our channels for interacting and adopt the same practices used by certain foreign supreme audit institutions. These three actions are planned for 2022.

Why is this commitment relevant to OGP values? In keeping with its open gov approach adopted over the last two action plan cycles, and taking a cue from initiatives promoted by the OGP and other contributors to previous action plans, this commitment is relevant to two values: - citizen participation: The idea is to reaffirm civil society’s input in public policy audits and evaluations through two initiatives, namely giving citizens the opportunity to have a say in the Government Audit Office’s work programme and be involved in developing an assessment methodology - the strengthening of public accountability: The creation of a platform for whistleblowers should make it easier to report infractions and break down any barriers to whistleblowing

Additional information The Government Audit Office has previous experience with co-creating numerous initiatives alongside civil society, including in the context of hackathons, data sessions and the redesign of its website. This commitment is more broadly part of the JF 2025 strategic reform plan.

Action Plan Review

Commitment 52. Get citizens more involved in the Government Audit Office’s work

● Verifiable: Yes

● Does it have an open government lens? Yes

● Potential for results: Substantial

Supreme Audit Institution

For a complete description of the commitment, see Commitments 52 in the action plan at https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/france-action-plan-2021-2023/.

Context and objectives

This commitment seeks to implement part of the 2025 strategy of France’s Supreme Audit Institution (SAI). It has been pulled, without changes, from the 2025 strategy, which was launched in 2021, and includes an openness pillar. [32] The SAI will test a way for citizens to be engaged in its work program through a right of petition platform, develop oversight tools, and introduce a mechanism to report poor management or financial misconduct in public institutions (open to whistleblowers who seek anonymity, as well as other citizens and organizations). The commitment is relevant to the open government values of public accountability. For the SAI, the commitment will address the results from an OpinionWay survey, where 84% of respondents wished to contribute to the SAI’s work program. [33]

The SAI hosted a workshop of the Forum Open d’Etat during the co-creation process. For some civil society groups, the commitment could be more ambitious as it currently will implement only those actions that the SAI agreed and committed to before co-creation. [34] It is not clear whether civil society with expertise on the SAI’s work participated in the co-creation process. [35]

The previous action plan cycle included a commitment from the SAI that focused on increasing transparency by publishing numerous data sets on budget implementation of government institutions, specific inquiries the SAI had conducted, and the activities of financial courts. [36]

Potential for results: Substantial

The activities with the greatest potential for results are to implement a reporting mechanism, along with the public platform testing a right to suggest work for the SAI. Both actions introduce substantial changes to the operations of the SAI, bringing in citizens into setting its agenda and enabling public accountability through a mechanism for reporting misconduct. The SAI already receives more than 3500 letters annually suggesting enquiries or reporting problems [37], but until now there has been no formal procedure to handle them and there is no transparency into how the SAI processes them.

At the moment, when citizens wish to report misuse of public funds or corruption, they might write to the Supreme Audit Institution. The introduction of a formal reporting mechanism could mark a cultural change by incorporating direct reporting of misconduct. The SAI has said that its intention is for the platform to be broader than just for use by whistleblowers (which come under specific regulations as part of Sapin II legislation). [38] The mechanism will be launched by September 2022.

Another area of work in Commitment 52 is the public platform that would give citizens an ability to suggest audits for the SAI to conduct. The introduction of the platform means that citizens (or civil society organizations) who have a suggestion for the SAI’s work, will be able to do it through a public channel. The SAI has committed itself to produce six reports directly demanded by citizens and to explain its choice of selection. [39] A civil society representative indicted that this is potentially the most impactful of the activities of the SAI. [40]

Opportunities, challenges and recommendations during implementation

Anonymity is a key aspect enabling whistleblowers to come forward. The successful implementation of this commitment may weigh heavily on allowing anonymous reporting. The SAI has confirmed it would ensure a very high level of confidentiality for all users of the reporting mechanism, as well as a way to issue a report anonymously. [41]

The IRM notes there is risk of creating confusion for potential whistleblowers about which institution to direct reports about abuse of public power, funds or corruption, in a context of France having adopted the EU Directive on Whistleblower Protection in March 2022, which identifies the French Ombudsman (Defenseur des Droits) as the lead institution to implement its requirements. The SAI told the IRM that there were fruitful exchanges between itself and the Ombudsman regarding this reporting mechanism. It was agreed to make sure it was identified as a broad reporting mechanism and as such distinct from more specific and narrow whistleblowing mechanisms, regulated by the decree [42].

The public platform for proposing audits had been launched at the time of writing this action plan review. The criteria for selecting proposals remain vague however. [43] The IRM suggests to make it clearer for citizens who may be interested in submitting a proposal.

Regarding the reporting platform and the platform for citizen-proposed audits, the IRM makes the following recommendations:

● Ensure that the reporting mechanism implements strong confidentiality standards: It is important to ensure the protection of whistleblowers when they cannot report corruption anonymously. Anonymity is a key element enabling reporting of misconduct and whistleblowers to come forward and also reduces the likelihood of retaliation. The Supreme Audit Institution could also take measures that reduce the risk of potential retaliation. The SAI could benefit from examining the study on good practices regarding confidentiality in whistleblower protection that the Czech Republic is conducting as part of its 2020–2022 Action Plan. [44] The SAI could also learn from the actions in Estonia’s 2020–2022 Action Plan to study and implement digital solutions that could ensure confidentiality for whistleblowers. [45]

● Make clear the differences between the reporting platform and any other whistleblowing channels. It should be clear to potential users and whistleblowers that the reporting mechanism has a broader target audience than only whistleblowers. This may help to encourage individuals who are not sure they want to go through the process of officially whistleblowing. There could be links to other whistleblowing channels, should users decide that they would prefer to use another mechanism. More information made available to citizens regarding the differences and expectations of how reports would be handled would aid the understanding of the process for potential whistleblowers and users of the reporting platform.

● Establish a robust and transparent methodology and criteriafor how citizens’ audit proposals will be processed and selected: The methodology and criteria should be made publicly available for citizens and drafted as to be clear and user-friendly for nonexperts. The SAI could also increase the inclusion of citizens throughout the audit process, not just to suggest new audits (as was proposed during the co-creation workshop). Citizens should also be informed about whether audits have been accepted, when they start, when they are done, and their outcomes. France could learn from the system created as part of Georgia’s commitment in its 2016–2018 Action Plan to set up a Budget Monitor platform to allow citizens to propose audits and priority areas. [46]