Monument inspectorate
The Monument Inspectorate is a specialised inspection body of the Ministry of Culture in the field of State monument care pursuant to the provisions of Section 27 of Act No. 20/1987 Coll., on State monument care, as amended. The main mission of the Monument Inspectorate is to perform central supervision over the observance of the aforementioned Act and the regulations issued for its implementation. The Monument Inspectorate fulfils the following tasks, in particular:
- overseeing the procurement of comprehensive care of cultural monuments,
- overseeing observance of the decisions of the bodies of State monument care for the procurement of care of cultural monuments and fulfilment of the set obligations by the owners (administrators, users) of cultural monuments,
- performing an analysis of the condition of State monument care on the basis of the findings obtained in the exercise of supervision and proposing measures for its improvement.
The Monument Inspectorate performs systematic inspections of the exercise of government in the area of monument care at the regional authorities.
The Monument Inspectorate proposes measures to the relevant bodies of State monument care for elimination of the ascertained shortcomings and oversees their fulfilment.
The central supervision by the Monument Inspectorate is concerned in particular with activities related to the protection and restoration of cultural heritage.
Inspection of the Execution of State Monument Care in the Years 2004 to 2005
The completion of another two-year stage in the inspection of the exercise of government in the area of monument care at the regional authorities and the Municipal Council of the Capital City of Prague performed on the basis of Government Resolution No. 554 of 4 June 2003 by the Monument Inspectorate of the Ministry of Culture allows a brief summary of at least the basic findings made both in the aforementioned long-term event and other inspection activities of the Monument Inspectorate.
1. Inspection at the Regional Authorities
The inspection pursuant to the aforementioned Government Resolution was concerned with the procedure of the regional authorities and the Municipal Council of the Capital City of Prague in the execution of State monument care pursuant to Act No. 20/1987 Coll., on State monument care, as amended, and furthermore pursuant to the regulations issued for its implementation, in particular Decree No. 66/1988 Coll., as amended.
As for the subject matter of the inspection, it was concerned mainly with decisions issued in the 1st instance proposal proceedings pursuant to Section 14 (1) of the Act on State Monument Care, i.e. binding opinions on the restoration of national cultural monuments, and decisions pursuant to Section 14 (l), (2) of the aforementioned Act with respect to the Municipal Council of the Capital City of Prague, by virtue of which binding opinions were issued concerning the restoration of cultural monuments or, as the case may be, binding opinions concerning a planned construction, structural alteration or maintenance work on real estate which is not cultural heritage but is situated in a monument reserve, monument zone or protective zone delimited pursuant to the aforementioned Act.
Thus, the contents of the agenda of the Municipal Council of the Capital City of Prague and that of the regional authorities differ both in nature and, in particular, quantity. It should be added for explanation that while, within the national scope, the structure of the bodies of State monument care encompasses three levels (the authority of a municipality with extended competence – the regional authority – the Ministry of Culture), it has merely two levels in Prague (the Municipal Council of the Capital City of Prague – the Ministry of Culture).
As a result, the 2nd instance agenda, i.e. decision-making on regular and extraordinary remedies concerning the decisions of municipal authorities with extended competence, was inspected at the regional authorities, but not at the Municipal Authority of the Capital City of Prague.
The procedure of the regional authorities in their inspection activities towards the municipal authorities with extended competence pursuant to Chapter VIII of Act No. 129/2000 Coll., on regions, as amended, was also reviewed. However, the Monument Inspectorate is not technically capable of repeatedly performing a thorough inspection of the administrative decisions of the authorities of municipalities with extended competence inspected by the regional authorities.
The methodological activities of the regional authorities towards the authorities of municipalities with extended competence were also monitored.
The inspections performed at all regional authorities were comprehensive; the sample of the inspected decisions of the Municipal Authority of the Capital City of Prague differed in content, given its specific competence. The selection of the sample of the inspected decisions differed depending on the volume of the agenda at the respective regional authority. The major part of the agenda concerned was inspected in cases where the volume of the agenda was relatively small in the period subject to the inspection.
The selection was combined – random on the one hand, although with a view to preferably covering the entire range of the execution of State monument care by the inspected entity, and structured on the other hand, in cases where the inspected matters had been subject to the motions and complaints of various parties, including citizens’ associations or if they pertained to previous proposals for measures.
A very brief summary can be made of the most frequently occurring shortcomings that did not differ substantially from the previous inspection findings in their subject matter. Shortcomings in the application of Section 14 (1) of the Act on State Monument Care in the issuing of binding opinions remained the most frequent. Additional relatively widespread shortcomings included the insufficient protection of the interests of State monument care, i.e. the fulfilment of the purpose of the Act on State Monument Care. Cases of inconsistent ascertainment of cultural and historic values within the conducted administrative proceedings are a serious shortcoming, which is mostly given by an insufficient standard of written statements by the specialised organisation of State monument care concerned.
Unsatisfactory adoption of measures in response to a failure to fulfil the obligations imposed by the Act on State Monument Care was another serious shortcoming.
A failure to perform inspections at the authorities of municipalities with extended competence by the Regional Authority of the Karlovy Vary Region also represents a serious shortcoming.
2. Changes in the Organisation of State Monument Care
As opposed to the previous period, the period subject to the inspection, which involved the years 2003 to 2004, is characterised by prevalent stabilisation of the execution of State monument care at the regional authorities.
However, the consequences of such a fundamental change in organisation as that associated with the termination of the work of district authorities pursuant to Act No. 147/2000 Coll., on district authorities, and the passage of the major part of the execution of State monument care for which they were authorized, to the authorities of municipalities with extended competence pursuant to Part Twenty-One of Act No. 320/2002 Coll., amending and repealing certain laws in connection with the termination of district authorities, logically had an impact on the work of the regional authorities in the inspected period.
Serious problems emerged in many places as a result of the aforementioned matters, because unlike the more or less standard solution at the district authorities, the standard of the execution of State monument care at the authorities of municipalities with extended competence varies, depending on the conditions created at different sites. While at least a core of the team of the former district authority remained at some municipal authorities, in particular in the seats of the former district authorities, the majority of monument care sites is seriously understaffed or, more importantly, lacks qualified personnel. The institute of public-law agreements, which would enable concentration of State monument care into a single place within a district and creation of a site similar to the former district authority sites in size and composition (and as a result, the standard of its work), is very rarely used. In addition, public-law agreements in themselves cannot guarantee the lasting existence of such sites, which is a prerequisite for proper and hence stabilised exercise of their work. A single employee exercises the aforementioned agenda at multiple municipal authorities and, as a result, there is no substitution for such a person in fieldwork, which is absolutely necessary for the execution of State monument care, as well as during a holiday or sick leave.
It follows from the findings of the Monument Inspectorate, made directly and ascertained via the regional authorities, that this is not a mere temporary effect caused by common difficulties in the introduction of the above-mentioned organisational change in practice, but rather a basically permanent condition.
As the number of municipalities with extended competence is significantly higher than the number of district authorities, there is a remarkable increase in the number of inspections by the regional authorities compared to the previous situation, which requires more personnel. This obviously has an effect on the work of the regional authorities that must cope both with the proceedings on remedies and inspections at such municipal authorities and the provision of methodological assistance to the often inexperienced personnel. Since 1 January 2003, the aforementioned situation has placed substantially higher demands on the regional authority sites than before the dissolution of the district authorities.
3. Causes of the Ascertained Shortcomings
Subjective and objective causes should be considered when evaluating the causes of the shortcomings.
Subjective causes represent the shortcomings of individual employees. They result mostly from the interdisciplinary orientation of the processed agenda, i.e. the latter’s difficulty and diversity that demands extremely extensive knowledge in various fields.
Apart from the ability to apply, in a standard manner, the substantive and procedural regulations in administrative proceedings conducted both in the first and the second instances, the regional authority personnel cannot do without an understanding of the aspects of monument care, an understanding of historic structures and a relatively extensive knowledge of art history, in particular architecture. They should be familiar with the issue of land-use planning and the construction code given the prevailing agenda pertaining to buildings subject to monument protection. At least the personnel of planning authorities are required to have an understanding of the actual construction process. It is also necessary that they are familiar with the manner in which archaeological surveying and other types of surveying applicable in the sector are carried out and are able to work with the results of such surveys.
There is a number of different objective causes depending on the site concerned. The basic cause is related to the volume of the agenda handled, in particular at the first level – in regions where there is a small number of national cultural monuments and where the frequency of building activity related to them is low, the demands for the work of the regional authority are substantially lower in this respect than in regions where the opposite is the case. Surprisingly, the quality of the results is not always directly proportional to the aforementioned settings.
Personnel at the sites are another weighty factor, both in terms of quality and, in particular, quantity. While in terms of quality the situation may be described as stabilised although not ideal, the designated number of staff is obviously insufficient in a number of cases.
The quality of written statements and, as the case may be, other basic documents from the specialised organisation of State monument care is another objective factor within the scope dealt with herein, which sometimes determines the work of the regional authorities.
The above-mentioned demands for the personnel of the regional authorities do not differ substantially from the demands placed on the personnel of the authorities of municipalities with extended competence.
In this respect, mention should be made of the occasional superficial notions according to which the administrative body providing for monument care should merely copy the written statements of the specialised organisation into its decisions. This is often the case in practice, although not always as a result of an identical opinion of the administrative body on the matter, demonstrably ascertained within its administrative discretion and properly justified as the applicable legislation requires, but rather due to inability to assess the matter in a qualified manner. As a result, the binding opinion remains entirely dependent on the content of the written statement and may therefore take over the ambiguities and indeed incorrect facts contained in the statement.
Although this paper reflects, in particular, on the shortcomings at the relevant administrative authorities in the area of monument care, some other important aspects that complicate the conservation of the cultural heritage should be at least briefly mentioned. In some cases, there is a lack of interest among the local governments in the cultural heritage values or even a categorical objection to uniform monument protection, which they entirely groundlessly consider to be the reason for the lack of development and prosperity of some rural municipalities, just like the utilitarian approach of some owners. The interest among construction authorities in the compliance by builders in the area of the Construction Code may be defined as only half-hearted at the very best, and last but not least, the quality of design documents presented to the bodies of State monument care and the construction authorities also plays a role; the authors often fail to observe even the fundamental formal requisites set out by Decree No. 132/1998 Coll., implementing certain provisions of the Construction Code; the actual results of their work often suggest a lack of elementary insight into the building organism of buildings subject to monument protection.
4. Summary Evaluation of the Reviewed Period of 2004 to 2005
The results of the inspections do not differ substantially from the findings made within the inspections of the execution of State monument care performed by the Monument Inspectorate in the past stage of inspection at the regional authorities, the previous inspections at the district authorities and other inspection work.
In spite of the ascertained shortcomings, however serious in some cases, it must be stated that the condition of the execution of monument care at the regional authorities is stabilised. The overwhelming majority of the inspected regional authorities fulfil their competence in the manner as set out by law. Although certain differences in quality may be noted between different regional authorities, only two cases should be mentioned as truly distinct – the Regional Authority of the Zlín Region is performing well above average, while, on the contrary, the Regional Authority of the Karlovy Vary Region clearly lags behind.
The findings concerning the execution of State monument care at the authorities of municipalities with extended competence are extraordinarily serious, whether obtained within the work of the Monument Inspectorate itself or as a result of the inspections performed by the regional authorities. Its standard is difficult to compare within the national scope, distinctly variable in quality from case to case and generally supported by an insufficient number of personnel. It is obvious that the execution of monument care in the delegated competence at the authorities of municipalities with extended competence does not represent an efficient and effective solution that would entirely fulfil the international obligations of the Czech Republic in the area of cultural heritage.
A serious problem consists in the lack of effective mechanisms that would enable the achievement of a more effective remedy of the ascertained shortcomings in cases where some regional authorities remain deliberately inactive in spite of proposals for measures. It will therefore be necessary to observe in future whether the procedural stipulation anchored in the new rules of administrative proceedings proves proper within the protection of the public interest where state monument care belongs.
