Teisės vykdyti formalųjį profesinį mokymą administracinis teisinis reglamentavimas (antikorupcinis vertinimas)
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
| Date Issued |
|---|
2010 |
Profesinis mokymas – tai mokymas pagal profesinio mokymo programas, padedantis asmeniui įgyti kvalifikaciją arba ją tobulinti. Formalusis profesinis mokymas vykdomas pagal teisės aktų nustatyta tvarka patvirtintas ir įregistruotas profesinio mokymo programas, kurias baigus įgyjamas išsilavinimas ir (ar) kvalifikacija. Profesinio mokymo teikėjas formalųjį profesinį mokymą gali vykdyti tik turėdamas Švietimo ir mokslo ministerijos išduotą licenciją. Straipsnyje taikant dokumentų analizės, sisteminės ir lyginamosios analizės metodus nagrinėjamos teisę vykdyti formalųjį profesinį mokymą reglamentuojančios administracinės teisės normos, atskleidžiamos reglamentavimo spragos, turinčios įtakos korupcijai pasireikšti. Administracinis teisinis reglamentavimas aptariamas administracinio teisinio reguliavimo kontekste. Antikorupcinis vertinimas analizuojamas kaip viena iš korupcijos prevencijos priemonių, nurodomi antikorupcinio vertinimo teisinio reglamentavimo trūkumai. Straipsnio pabaigoje pateikiamos svarbiausios išvados ir pasiūlymai.
Formal vocational education is an activity licensed under legal acts, and therefore falls in the area of corruption risk. The legal acts regulating this area should be evaluated from the perspective of anti-corruption. There is no public information concerning such ongoing anti-corruption evaluation. Anti-corruption evaluation is not exercised or, if exercised, is not effective because deficiencies in applicable legal acts underlie this corruption. The article uses documentary analysis, systemic and comparative analysis. These methods allow us to conclude that the applicable legal acts establish only general (not specific) requirements for the providers of vocational education and training. Their ability to implement formal vocational education and training programs may be unreliable or unfounded, because evaluation is based on the subjective personal opinion of an expert. There is no foreseen liability of the experts carrying out the assessment for decisions they make. The assessment process and the procedures themselves are neither public nor transparent. Besides, legal administrative regulation does not foresee remedies with effective anti-corruption capacity: reconsideration, review or process control mechanisms. The licensing rules foresee a mechanism for the observation of licensed activity already underway. However, the conditions defined for the suspension of a license or its withdrawal are inadequate. Regulation concerned with anti-corruption assessment does not include executives of institutions outside of the public administrative sector and executives of institutions functioning in the lower levels of corruption risk. This area of regulation, therefore, requires substantial improvement. The article provides specific proposals for improvements to administrative legal regulation that would ensure transparent procedures, precise evaluation criteria, and reliable and valid assessment during the entire licensing process.