It is a great privilege for me to be able to address you today on behalf of The Movement for Quality Government in Israel (the MQG). I would like to thank our hosts and the organizers of the 2nd Seminar of IAACA .
 
My name is Barak Calev, and I have been serving as the Director of Legal Affairs of the MQG for the last 10 years. In my speech today, given to this distinguished forum, I will try to demonstrate our legal methodology which made us a leading organization in civil society in Israel. I will describe 5 categories of methods we use, and demonstrate them by examples, chosen carefully out of hundreds of legal projects handled by the MQG.
But before I do that, I would like to give a short general overlook of our organization.

The MQG was established in the year 1990 by a small group led by Adv. Eliad Shraga, who is also its current chairman,.
It is a non-profit, non-governmental, and non-partisan civil society organization with a Board of Directors made up entirely of volunteers.

The MQG is supported by an annual membership fee of $30 paid by each of its over 12,000 paying members, and by private funds and donors. The organization is entirely independent of government support.
In addition to its legal activities, the MQG is also proactive in the education field. Through its Academy for Quality Government in Israel, a daughter organization, it handles two major and highly successful programs: (1) Ometz - an interactive internet based high-school course on the study and practice of civics, And (2) Ethical Seminars which are conducted with government employees on both the national and municipal levels .

The MQG also assists in legislative efforts to promote better government. The MQG's representatives are often invited to appear before parliamentary committees. Lately, a group of legislators representing the entire political spectrum has formed a parliamentary lobby dedicated to the fight against corruption, and we are assisting them in drafting relevant legislation.
Prior to the 2006 general elections, the Civic Action Branch of the Movement initiated an Anticorruption Covenant, and for the first time in Israel, the leaders of almost all of the major political parties found time in their busy campaign schedules to sign the MQG's Anti Corruption Covenant, documented by television cameras. The Covenant also included their commitment to act for the ratification of the UNCAC by Israel. The ratification progress for UNCAC is, unfortunately not yet concluded. The covenant was also accompanied by a public petition, signed by over 22,000 citizens, and presented to the Chairperson of the Israeli Parliament.

But the focus of my lecture today is our watchdog legal methodology.

The MQG's reputation has been built on outstanding legal and investigative work.
The primary, although not exclusive, information source for our legal projects is our "Hot line" for public complaints. Last year the Hotline received over 1,200 complains, both from the public and from government employees. Another important source for information is the Media. The complaints are investigated by the 4 legal clinics that we run in cooperation with some of Israel’s leading law schools including the law school of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Law students sign up for the clinic as an elective course and are given work on complaints under our legal staff's close guidance.

In 2005, The MQG received the "Integrity Award" by the international organization TI, "Transparency International", as recognition for it's achievements in the fight against corruption, and its work in enhancing transparency and good governance in Israel.

Now, I will discuss and demonstrate the 5 categories of our methodology.

The first method - "Direct Legal Attack" using our position as a Public Petitioner

First of all, what is the Public Petitioner?
In Israel, citizens and NGOs have acquired legal standing to petition on administrative or constitutional issues directly to the Supreme Court (sitting as the "High Court of Justice"), and to Administrative Courts, even if they do not have a direct, particular personal interest in the matter.
The legal standing in courts, in administrative petitions, is a key factor in the MQG's ability to watchdog corruption. It is somewhat unusual, but we are convinced that greater access to the courts helps promote the rule of law and we urge other countries to consider recognizing the standing of public petitioners. The Supreme Court can rule in favor of the MQG, and issue an order to the responding government agency to act or refrain from acting in an illegal way on the matter at hand. Often, our petitions do not even reach the judgment stage. In many cases the state agency we have petitioned against realizes that it has a lot to lose if the Court rules against it and announces to the Court that it will accept the MQG's demand. In such cases we are only happy to withdraw our petition.

Our measured and careful use of the courts has actually found quite a few friends within the government. Recently we received a rare written recognition by a senior official within the Ministry of Justice of an achievement obtained through one of our petitions as a "Public Petitioner". In a letter written by one the country’s leading prosecutors within the State Prosecutor's office, she notes that:
"Through its Petition to the Supreme Court in this Case, the Movement for Quality Government has contributed to a significant savings of tens of millions of Shekels in public money; and has led public officials to put greater stress on honest reporting and improved government oversight of the distribution of public funds to non-profit institutions. The Movement has thus served to strengthen the rule of law in Israel and deserves to be commended."

By using this method of a Direct Legal Attack, the MQG led to many precedent setting rulings of the Supreme Court, a large number of which have become corner stones of Israeli administrative and constitutional law. I will give some examples:

• Coalition agreements among the various parties, which used to be kept secret from the public, must be made from now on public before the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) confirms a new government.

• Mayors and other local government senior officials, who used to bear no responsibility for misappropriation of funds, are now held personally accountable for such actions

• Illegal pension rises that the Knesset had granted its members were cancelled and the money returned to public coffers

• A ruling outlawing the appointment of ministers who are under indictment;

Although our standing as a Public Petitioner is important for our ability to use the Direct Attack method, this method could also be used by NGOs in countries where they do not have standing as Public Petitioner. That is because, many times, it is possible to find a side that was directly affected by the corruption. Now, since such a side would be considered a legitimate petitioner (i.e. plaintiff) in these countries, the NGO can bring the case to court by representing that side. Some good examples for a potential direct petitioner could be someone who was not elected for public office as a result of improper and unethical decision. Another example is a company that lost a tender as a result of corruption in the bidding process.

There are several advantages to why a Watchdog NGO should be the one giving legal representation to the plaintiff in such cases: First, it might enable a direct petitioner who couldn’t otherwise afford to go to court, to petition.

Second, when a Watchdog NGO is involved, the legal expertise accumulated in the NGO might be of a great importance and improve the chances to win.

Third, when a well known organization is standing behind a case, it is easier for it to convince potential sources with helpful information to step forward and deliver it.

Lastly, such involvement might have a positive influence on public interest in regard to the case. The fact that the case is no longer "only" a private legal sue, but a public issue, excites public interest, and might give the court an incentive to decide on the case without the fear of pressure from other branches of governance. By the involvement of the NGO, and growing public interest we might also decrease the incentive to generate such a pressure on the court.

It is important to note that Israeli courts are independent and enjoy the trust of the public, what makes them a very efficient monitoring mechanism when it comes to government malfeasance and corruption.

In this context, it is worth mentioning that the positive influence of the Civil Society in reducing the level of corruption is strongly supported by scholars. Among the latest confirmations of that assumption is the research done by two of the senior World Bank researchers, Gurgur and Shah . They found in their research from 2005, that the existence of civil society is one of the most influential factors in decreasing the corruption level in a country.

The second method: Proactive using of the law enforcement agencies

Cases are often resolved when a letter is written by the Movement to one of the law enforcement agencies. Such a letter might be sent to the Attorney General or the Police providing evidence we obtained from our sources and requesting that their agency initiate a criminal investigation.
Other frequent addresses for our letters are the State Ombudsman, or internal gatekeepers such as internal auditors, in governmental agencies. In many instances the involvement of the MQG is in itself sufficient to bring about a change in administrative action.
By using this method, we solve 2 difficulties that many times restrict law enforcement authorities from tackling phenomena of corruption and unethical conduct:

First, we might solve the problem for the whistleblowers who won't go directly to the police or to any public authority, because of the fear of exposure and retaliation. We serve as a mediator, or "buffer".

Second- we assist the law authorities by making a preliminary analysis of the case and the evidence. Every file goes through a careful screening and analyzing process before we decide that it merits further action. The authorities, therefore, receive a better complaint than the one a laymen might submit.
A good example for successful implementation of this method is the recent indictment of the former Minister for Environmental Affairs, of a "breech of trust" felony, because his illegal patronage appointments and illegal use of public resources. The investigation into this affair started when whistleblowers shared their information with us. We put great effort into investigating the file before handing the evidence over to the law enforcement authorities.

The third method: researching and exposing information,

We also operate an economic research department to monitor "sensitive" administrative processes and decisions regarding public assets, such as privatization and tenders. This research department also does "Budget Watching". It attempt to follow and understand the way the government budgets are made and used. .
For example, our research department has just concluded a multi-year project on the way the Ministry of Education distributes its budget. The findings showed that the education budget in Israel has some basic problems concerning its transparency and was difficult to understand even to those inside the Ministry.
 
We often use the "Freedom of Information Act" to obtain information. Occasionally we have been forced to petition the court under this law, when the relevant agency is not willing to give us information. In these petitions we will have two goals usually, the obvious one is – getting the information we need. The additional important goal, is to educate the agency to react properly in accordance with the citizen's right to receive information.

The forth method: Supporting whistleblowers

Retaliation against whistleblowers and insufficient protection for them is a widespread problem around the world. Israel also suffers from a hostile environment for "blowing the whistle". The MQG provides free legal assistance and representation to "whistleblowers". An important legal precedent was set last year in a whistleblower case heard by the National Labor Court, where the appellant was represented, pro bono, by MQG attorneys. The court ruling in this case, set a proper standard for compensation given to Whistleblowers that suffered from retaliation.


The fifth and last legal method: Proactive publication of opinions

The very fact that our opinion appears in the press, stating that the MQG is criticizing public malfeasance or unethical conduct of a government official or elected representative is sometimes sufficient to bring about the desired result. In light of public criticism sometime relevant public officials do announce that they will take the appropriate corrective steps.
The media in Israel is very energetic. Our reputation as a reliable source of information is a very powerful tool. Almost every week you will find prominent media coverage of our activities.

Current Trends
Just before I conclude my lecture, I would like to briefly talk about general trends in the way we use the 5 methods I've just discussed.

In the last 6 years, the MQG has put an emphasis on two well known problematic phenomena that are often mentioned and dealt in the academic literature on corruption. The first is "Rent Seeking" and the second is Capture of Government by interest groups . The common denominator between these 2 problematic phenomena, is the potential improper, even if not illegal, influence that big corporations, or well organized economic interest group, might obtain over government decisions. The shift in emphasis by our organization is meant to deal with these two issues, both in the central government level and in the municipal level.

Another significant Current tendency, in the way we use our 5 legal methods, is the growing attention we pay for phenomena of "Improper Governance" rather than "Corruption". We do so, because of the difficulties in detecting and proving individual criminal acts and because of the sophistication and complexity of contemporary corruption. Hence, we need to focus our efforts on the administrative arena and look for "only" "Improper Governance", such as deliberate violation of administrative norms and improper bureaucratic misconduct.

In terms of resource allocation, we also invest a growing quantity of our human resources on cases regarding the need to ensure transparency in governmental and municipal bodies.

Our emphasis on "improper governance" and "transparency" can be justified by both the 2 prevailing models to explain corruption incentives, the Gary Becker model described in his important work- "Crime and Punishment-An Economic Approach" , and the Rose Ackerman "Principle Agent Problem" model, described in her classic book in the field- "Corruption A Study in Political Economy" . According to both models, it is efficient to focus efforts in enhancing transparency, in order to minimize the Asymmetry in information between the public and the government. This asymmetry encourages the corruption. Further, both models support the monitoring of problems at a preliminary yet detectable stage, when someone is contemplating or just beginning to violate proper procedure. By that, we might prevent the corrupted decision to be completed and successful, in later stages, when it is less detectable..

Concluding Remarks

Our mission in the MQG is to consistently work toward enhancing public's awareness of its right for good and accountable governance. By taking an open and critical approach to government activities we believe that in the long term, government will be better and enjoy greater public trust.

We do believe that the vast majority of civil servants and elected officials in Israel are loyal to their trust and are committed to fulfill their job as best they can, for the public benefit. This public sector has enabled Israel, this year celebrating its 60 anniversary, to become a leader in technology, culture and science, with a steadily growing and stable economy.
Nevertheless, our mission is to maintain awareness for the importance of good and ethical government among those in public positions who do respect these values, and to create a "Civil Deterrence" toward those who do need it.
In other words, we invest our efforts to make sure that every person in public service, feels that the public is attentive and sensitive to his or her conduct, and is watching to ensure that the powers, entrusted to them as trustees, are not abused.

Thank you very much for your listening, I will be very happy to add further information after this session is concluded.