Official "Accountability Accountability" Observation
Journalist / Xu Tian
Issued in 2020.3.9 Issue 938 of China News Weekly
On March 2nd, an "outbreak accountability" news sparked heated discussions-the "earthquake" of Hubei Province's judicial system was triggered by the incident that "the newly diagnosed pneumonia pneumonia patients released from Wuhan women prison arrived in Beijing".
In Hubei, the case was investigated and investigated by the Secretary of the Party Committee and Director of the Provincial Department of Justice, Tan Xianzhen. The Secretary of the Party Committee and Director of the Provincial Prison Administration, Hao Aimin, the member of the Party Committee and Deputy Director of the Provincial Prison Management Bureau, Hu Chenghao, a member of the Party Committee and Director of the Political Department, Zhang Xinhua, and punishment Executive Director Li Xin was removed from office and filed for investigation.
The party directly involved, the former Party Secretary of Wuhan Women's Prison, and Zhou Yukun, the prison director, were previously dismissed for investigation and investigation. Guo Qiuwen, deputy director of the prison, and Tang Zaorong, chief of the penal enforcement section, were also dismissed for investigation and investigation. In addition, Yin Zhiqiang, deputy director of the Public Security Branch of Dongxihu District of Wuhan City, was removed from office and filed for investigation.
The term dismissal, which frequently appeared during the epidemic, attracted strong attention every time. The first to be noticed was Tang Zhihong, the former director of the Health and Health Committee of Huanggang City. At the end of January, in the face of the supervision team sent by the Central Guidance Group to Huanggang, she "remembered three questions" and was removed from office on January 30.
What kind of accountability is removal? How are officials accountable in this outbreak? Apart from the epidemic itself and its prevention and control measures, this is the issue that the public is most concerned about.
Basis for accountability
Huang Gang's notification of Tang Zhihong's removal said, "The Huanggang Municipal Party Committee has agreed to nominate and remove Comrade Tang Zhihong from the post of Huanggang City Health and Health Committee, and his removal shall be handled in accordance with relevant laws and regulations."
According to the "Regulations on the Selection and Appointment of Party and Government Leading Cadres", there are eight types of situations in which party and government leading cadres need to be removed from their current positions: those who have reached the age limit for service or retirement age; those who are subject to accountability should be removed from their posts; Those who should be dismissed due to disciplinary or law violations; resigned or transferred out; non-organizational assignments, individuals applying for a period of study for separation from employment that exceeds one year; those who are unable to perform their job duties normally for more than one year due to health reasons; should be dismissed due to work needs or other reasons Go to the current post.
From the official report alone, it is not clear why Tang Zhihong was removed from office. By the same token, Wang Shiwen, the former director of the Health and Health Committee of Ezhou City, Hubei Province, who was later removed from office, stated in an official notice that "the nomination dismissed the position of Comrade Wang Shiwen, Director of the Health and Health Committee, and the former director of the Municipal Public Hospital Management Center was automatically removed due to the name change. "The reason for his removal was equally difficult to judge accurately.
In fact, Hubei Province had higher-level dismissed officials during the epidemic, including Zhang Jin and former director Liu Yingzi, former party secretary of the Hubei Health and Health Committee.
A cadre at the grassroots level of the other provinces told China News Weekly that one of the reasons for the removal of public officials for wrongdoing is that the nature of their actions needs to be further investigated and verified, but it was no longer appropriate for them to continue to serve. And first removed.
Mao Zhaohui, director of the Anti-Corruption and Integrity Policy Research Center at Renmin University of China, told China News Weekly that the current removals of some officials in Hubei are different from those in general. "This removal will be followed by accountability for the package. But at present, (maybe) this time the situation subsides, additional accountability will be added." There are two reasons. One is that if the accountability is immediate, it may not be true. Too clear; the second is that it will affect attention. At present, we must focus our attention on preventing epidemics.
Therefore, the above removal notices need further observation. So, in the epidemic, has Hubei made an accountable decision to remove the job?
The answer is: yes, and many. For example, in the case of the official court earthquake in Hubei Province mentioned in the beginning of this article, many people were removed from office and put on file for investigation.
According to the "Rules of Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China", "the disciplinary inspection and supervision organs have, after preliminary verification, suspected party members, cadres, and monitoring targets of disciplinary violations, or post violations of laws and duties, and are required to investigate disciplinary or legal responsibilities. . "
That is to say, those who want to file a case for review and investigation all know that they have mastered some of the disciplinary or post violations, the facts and evidence of post crimes. The decision to remove from office under such circumstances must also be accountable.
Another widely known and clear accountability for removal is the accountability of the Hubei Red Cross. According to the website of the Hubei Provincial Discipline Inspection Commission's website, "After investigation, relevant leaders and cadres of the Provincial Red Cross Society have not acted, acted in violation of the" Three Major Ones "regulations and information during the work of receiving and distributing donations during the epidemic prevention and control. Issues of public misconduct, such as dereliction of duty ... Decided to remove Zhang Qin's Red Cross Party group member and full-time deputy chairman, and to give him serious warnings within the party and excessive penalties for administrative records. " The reasons for the removal are obvious. In addition to disciplinary violations of the law, officials were given double disciplinary actions and government affairs.
The different reasons for removal reflect the importance of accountability to officials. There are several ways of accountability, including organizational processing, party discipline, and government affairs. To put it simply, the organization and processing are relatively light. Party discipline is targeted at party members, and government affairs are targeted at all monitoring targets performing public duties. Dismissal is a form of organizational processing, not a form of sanction.
According to relevant regulations, accountability has a certain impact period. Leading cadres who have been instructed must not be promoted or reused within six months; party and government leading cadres who have resigned, ordered to resign, and have been dismissed due to accountability do not arrange leadership positions within one year and cannot be promoted within two years; because they are not suitable for current positions No one shall be promoted within one year if he is removed from his post or removed from his post.
That is to say, the above removal notices for which the reasons are not clear, if they are found to be inappropriate or accountable, they shall not be promoted for at least one year or even two years.
One of the well-known officials who had been removed from office and blame resignation was Meng Xuenong, the mayor of Beijing during the SARS period. At that time, he was removed from the party for three months, and was resigned as mayor. After the recovery, in 2008 he was again removed from the party due to a dam breach in Shanxi and resigned as the governor of Shanxi.
It is worth noting that unless otherwise disciplined by the party, the officials who are removed will generally retain their original rank treatment. For example, Meng Xuenong, the mayor of Beijing, and the governor of Shanxi are both at the ministerial level. Since then, he has served as the deputy secretary of the working committee of the central government-affiliated organs.
Compared with organizational treatment, the nature of the five types of party discipline is more severe, and the period of influence is relatively longer. If you are warned, severely warned, or withdrawn from your party, you will not be allowed to be promoted for one year, one and a half years, and two years. If punished by the party's inspection, the post within the party will naturally be revoked. Within two years after the reinstatement of party membership, no restoration or promotion of the original rank is allowed. The worst party discipline is the expulsion of the party.
In addition to party members' accountability methods, the Interim Provisions of the People's Republic of China on Supervision Law and the Provisional Provisions on the Administration of Public Officials also stipulates the form of sanctions for all illegal supervision targets, that is, administrative sanctions, including warnings, past records, past records, Relegation, dismissal, firing, etc.
"Care from fast"
On January 30, 2020, the Hubei Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection issued a notice, which proposed six words, "Cong Cong from quick investigation and punishment." In the notice, the Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection identified five situations that need to be investigated and dealt with promptly: "First, for those who conceal the report, misreport the confirmed diagnosis, death, or suspected cases, resolutely remove them from office, or even dismiss them from the party and dismiss them from public office; Those who have escaped from the battlefield will be resolutely dismissed or even expelled from the party and dismissed from public office. Third, those who have serious consequences or adverse social impact due to non-compliance, non-implementation, false acts, false acts, shall be resolutely demoted or dismissed, or even expelled from the party, or expelled. Public office punishment; Fourth, for corruption, embezzlement, misappropriation of special funds for prevention and control, and protective materials, resolutely expel the party membership and dismissal from public office; suspect suspected crimes, transfer them to judicial authorities to deal with them according to law; fifth, create, spread, spread rumors, etc. Those who seriously violate political disciplines and political rules will be resolutely dismissed from office or even expelled from the party and dismissed from public office. "
At the same time, Wang Lishan, member of the Standing Committee of the Hubei Provincial Party Committee, Secretary of the Provincial Discipline Inspection Commission, and Director of the Provincial Supervisory Committee, put forward five "strictest measures" during Huanggang's inspection and supervision of epidemic prevention and control: the strictest measures, strictest work style, strictest management, and strictest supervision. The strictest accountability.
Other provinces in the country are also in the epidemic situation, have made similar accountability requirements, such as "strictly and seriously." This sets the tone for local processing.
Mao Zhaohui pointed out that rigorousness means that for some special situations, if its social harm is great and its influence is great, the upper limit is the standard for investigation.
The most serious of accountability is the expulsion of party membership and public office, which is known as the "double opening". In Hubei Province's notified accountability, a typical "double open" case is in Xianning. Luo Yuqin, a cadre of Chibi Medical Security Bureau hosted by Xianning City and the first secretary of Banqishan Village in Zhaoliqiao Town, went to the villager's home with the village party branch secretary and village committee director Lei Luping for dinner, and then with the village party branch deputy Clerks, reserve party members and some villagers gathered to gamble. In addition, it also involves issues such as leaving the post without authorization, leaving the post without authorization, driving a work vehicle in violation of regulations to carry non-staff or carrying relatives out of the city in a work vehicle, resulting in abnormal flow of personnel. Luo Yuqin was doubled, Lei Luping was expelled from the party, and he was removed from his post as director of the village committee.
Other provinces have dealt with similar situations during the epidemic. During the prevention and control period, cadres left their posts and gathered to gamble. Perhaps because of the differences in the details of the case, the cadres were not doubled. For example, the secretary of the Party branch and the director of the village committee of Qianshayu Village, Wuqing District, Tianjin was revoked from the party and ordered to resign as the village committee director.
Henan Province also announced the "double open" model. During the epidemic prevention and control period, Li Qiang, deputy director of the Economic Development Bureau of Zhengzhou Airport Economic Comprehensive Experimental Zone, gathered together to drink, drive and drink. When he returned to the residential area, he refused to cooperate with the epidemic prevention and control personnel to inspect and beat the staff with three relatives . He was double-opened and detained according to law with the other three persons involved in the beatings.
The typical case that is more common in the provinces' notifications is escape. For example, Zhou Jun, a first-level member of the Audit Division of the Economic Responsibility Audit Bureau of Xiangyang City, Hubei Province, refused to execute the request after receiving the unit's "report to the unit and the community every day" notification request. After the community arranged for him to deliver goods to a community with a community cadre the next day, he learned that there was a suspected case of new coronary pneumonia in the community, and he was worried that he was infected by the virus, and he was timid. He refused to perform this task and did not participate. Community prevention and control work. In addition, he also moved away from the family hospital and lived in the hotel. He did not report his whereabouts and did not report his physical condition for many days. Eventually, he was expelled from the party and was reduced from a first-ranking member to a second-ranking member.
A similar situation occurred in Liaoning, but the treatment was slightly milder. Jiang Tian, a staff member of the Tengxi Market Supervision and Management Office of the Tiexi District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Shenyang City, did not answer the phone, did not return WeChat, opened the medical certificate, and refused to answer the phone. day off. The party stayed for one year and was dismissed from government affairs, and was reduced from the second-ranking chief to the third-ranking chief.
Another typical case that is more common in notifications is concealment. For example, Zhang Xinfu, deputy principal of Tongcheng County Experimental Primary School in Xianning, returned from Wuhan with his wife. On January 22, he organized more than ten tables for his father in violation of regulations, hosted more than a hundred people, and received a 2,000 yuan gift. Later, he accompanied his wife to the hospital for treatment and concealed Wuhan's contact history. After his wife's diagnosis, the hospital's 20 medical staff and a number of cadres were isolated for observation. During the review, Zhang Xinfu also refused to cooperate. After that, he was expelled from the party and was transferred to the public security organ for handling the suspected violation of law with his wife.
This situation is also more common outside Hubei Province, but in the official report, perhaps because the circumstances are different, the punishment is slightly lighter than Hubei Province. For example, the deputy principal of a primary school in Tianjin concealed the situation of not reporting his son's return from Wuhan and was given the punishment of revocation of the party's position and the removal of government affairs; the daughter of the deputy secretary of the party branch of Shijieshan City, Ningxia returned home from Wuhan. Disciplinary warnings.
There is also a more common type of cases that are not implemented, false acts, false acts. For example, a group of returnees from Wuhan, Shuiyuan Village, Fenglin Town, Huangshi City, Hubei Province, were hospitalized for observation. Some of them were later diagnosed. During this period, 124 returnees reported no changes in their body temperature information for three consecutive days, and they were later diagnosed. The patient's temperature report information was always normal. After investigation, it was Hu Qingliang, deputy director of the village committee, who failed to fill it out. He was sentenced to one year's inspection by the staying party, and the deputy director of Shuiyuan Village Committee was fired.
According to publicly available data, the proportion of penalties in accountability varies. The cities with higher sanctions in Hubei Province are Xianning and Qianjiang. As of February 23, Xianning City held 399 people accountable, of which 135 were punished, accounting for 33.3%. As of February 28, Qianjiang City had held 114 people accountable, of which 38 were punished, accounting for 33.3%. Existing public figures outside Hubei Province are lower than them. For example, in Gansu Province, as of February 24, a total of 976 people were handled, of which 170 were punished, accounting for 17.4%.
Who is accountable
According to the "China News Weekly", in the typical cases notified in various places, there are several types of people who are most commonly involved in job behaviors in prevention and control. The first is the grass-roots cadres, including the village party secretary, the director of the neighborhood committee, and the director of the sub-district office; the second is the relevant personnel of the most directly related units of the epidemic such as the hospital;
There have been many examples of the first group of people mentioned above, and the proportion of such personnel is the highest in the notification.
The second type is not uncommon in notifications both inside and outside Hubei Province. For example, the deputy dean of the Nanchong Campus Hospital of Southwest Petroleum University of Sichuan Province knows that two of his relatives have developed fever symptoms and imaging characteristics of pneumonia, and did not report to the CDC. They were admitted to the campus hospital for treatment. Later, one of them was diagnosed with new coronary pneumonia. And the director of the hospital did not listen to other medical staff's opinions, agreed to be admitted in violation of regulations, and did not report the situation in a timely manner, which led to a significant risk of spreading the epidemic, resulting in multiple medical staff being isolated for observation. After that, the deputy dean was dismissed and the employment relationship was terminated; the dean was severely warned by the party and dismissed.
The third common group is officials who are responsible for leadership, which can be subdivided into relevant persons in charge of the health system and relevant persons in charge of cities, counties or other units.
In the epidemic, more than one health system has been held accountable. In the hotly-discussed "Wuhan Women's Prison's New Coronary Pneumonia Diagnosed Person Arrives in Beijing", during the accountability process announced in Beijing, he decided to warn Yu Jianping, director of the Beijing Centers for Disease Control, and give Beijing Qian Haikun, deputy director of the Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, warned the punishment. As early as the end of January, neighboring Hebei Province also reported that Dong Bosen, director of the Handan CDC, was suspended due to poor performance.
For the handling of city, county, and district leaders, the most famous report outside Hubei Province is probably Dali City. Due to the seizure of the epidemic mask, the secretary of the Dali Municipal Party Committee was dismissed, and the party was severely warned. The Dali mayor and a deputy mayor were given the revocation of the party's position and the administrative office was dismissed.
Except for such special cases, the handling of relevant persons in charge of cities, counties and districts is mostly concentrated in areas with severe epidemics. For example, in Heilongjiang Province, at least seven provincial-level cadres have been dismissed from the provinces described by the media as “high mortality and severe illness rates” outside Hubei, including the mayor of Xiangfang District, Mayor of Wuchang, and secretary of the Qihuahar Jianhua District Committee. , Secretary, Deputy District Chief, District Health and Health Bureau, Hengshan District, Jixi City, Deputy County Mayor, Friendship County, Harbin Shuangyashan, Director of County Health and Health Bureau, Secretary of Jinlin District, Yichun City, etc.
Another example is the pressure of the epidemic situation in Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, which once was the city with the largest number of diagnoses outside Hubei Province. Due to loopholes in prevention and control, the head of the Yueqing City Health and Health Bureau and the director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Wenzhou City were dismissed, and the deputy mayor in charge of Yueqing City was severely warned by the party. Similarly, Daofu County, Ganzi Prefecture, Sichuan Province is the county with the most confirmed cases outside Chengdu, Sichuan Province. The County United Front Minister and the Director of Public Security were both reviewed by the party's discipline.
The treatment of the heads of other units is currently the most concerned about the prison system. In this outbreak, there have been outbreaks of criminal infection in five prisons in Hubei, Zhejiang and Shandong provinces. As of February 25, a total of 555 cases have been confirmed, 19 suspected and 4 severe. In addition to the Hubei judicial system described at the beginning of this article, eight leading cadres including the Secretary of the Party Committee of the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice were removed from office, and the prison director and political commissar of the prison in Zhejiang Province were also removed.
Some prefectures and cities disclosed the number of cadres at or above the level of accountability in the epidemic prevention and control work. For example, the city of Wuhan, which received the most attention, pointed out in its February 22 notification that the Wuhan disciplinary inspection and supervision organs handled a total of more than 630 people, including more than 130 cadres at and above the division level. This proportion is higher in the domestic published data. Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province revealed the accountability data on February 28. They have held accountable 338 people, including 43 county-level officials.
It is not difficult to see that the accountability in the current epidemic prevention and control has a high pressure. It is also in the process that at least two grass-roots disciplinary commissioners interviewed by China News Weekly mentioned the concept of "prudent accountability." The aforementioned grassroots supervisory committee cadre told China News Weekly that most of the grassroots cadres in his locality are mainly criticized and educated, because this is "the time when grassroots cadres are most in need of charge" and cannot be killed with a single stick.
In an interview, Zhu Hua, executive deputy secretary of Hangzhou Discipline Inspection Commission and deputy director of the Supervision Commission, said in an interview that “one loop and one loop of epidemic prevention and control will inevitably lead to omissions or deficiencies in management, especially grass-roots party members and cadres who are very hard, and must be held accountable. We must be cautious and prudent. "He said that the Hangzhou Discipline Inspection and Supervision Agency has actively made subjective efforts to verify party members and cadres, and has not tolerated work or sought private gains, and has moderate fault tolerance or waiver.
Zhuang Deshui, deputy director of Peking University's Clean Government Construction Research Center, told China News Weekly that this requires objective and realistic accountability, so as to avoid accidental injuries and balance. In particular, it is necessary to avoid the tendency of the leader to be voluntarized, that is, the punishment cannot be aggravated because the leader attaches importance to it, or because the public opinion is concerned. "It is still necessary to seek truth from facts, according to laws and regulations, and use discipline enforcement more accurately to win the trust of the public and convince the party members and cadres who have been punished."
Mao Zhaohui also pointed out that at present, there is diversity in the operation process of accountability during the prevention and control period in various places, some places are strict, and some places are looser. He believes that the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the National Supervision Commission, or the local Commission for Discipline Inspection should issue a guiding opinion on accountability during the prevention and control period, so that localities can further monitor in accordance with regulations.
"China News Weekly" No. 8 2020
Disclaimer: Publication of "China News Weekly" manuscript is authorized in writing