Improve the quality of law enforcement and standardize law enforcement behavior

In order to explore the establishment of the performance evaluation system of administrative punishment, improve the quality and efficiency of urban management law enforcement, and standardize the administrative law enforcement behavior of law enforcement members, Chongqing recently issued the Interim Measures for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Urban Management Law Enforcement of Chongqing Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Corps (hereinafter referred to as the "Evaluation Measures"), which requires compliance with laws and regulations, objectivity and fairness, seeking truth from facts, highlighting key points, focusing on performance, supervision and restraint, incentive and guarantee, hierarchical supervision and self-supervision.

Highlight 1: Set up a leading group for law enforcement effectiveness evaluation.

The "Evaluation Method" clarifies that the Corps should set up a leading group for the evaluation of law enforcement effectiveness, with the main leaders of the Corps as the team leader, the deputy team leader in charge of the Legal Department as the executive deputy team leader, and other members of the team as the deputy team leader. The main leaders of the General Department of the Corps, the Political Department (discipline inspection room), the Legal Department, the municipal public facilities law enforcement detachment, the city landscaping law enforcement detachment, and the urban illegal building law enforcement detachment are members. The leading group has an office in the Legal Affairs Department of the Corps, which is responsible for daily work.

The Legal Affairs Department of the Corps is responsible for coordinating, organizing and implementing the evaluation of law enforcement effectiveness, and putting forward suggestions on the results of the annual evaluation of law enforcement effectiveness. Each law enforcement detachment of the Corps is responsible for carrying out internal self-evaluation and supervision in accordance with the "Evaluation Measures" and providing basic data and information in the annual law enforcement effectiveness evaluation. The evaluation of law enforcement effectiveness is mainly based on verifying the basic data, and when necessary, it can investigate and verify the relevant situation to the law enforcement detachment and law enforcement personnel. The evaluation results of law enforcement effectiveness are suggested to be submitted to the chief captain’s office for deliberation, and the annual report on the evaluation results of law enforcement effectiveness will be released after deliberation and approval.

In addition, in order to ensure objectivity and fairness, the "Evaluation Measures" require that the evaluation results of law enforcement effectiveness should be informed to the evaluated law enforcement detachment. If the evaluated law enforcement detachment has any objection, it shall feedback the opinions to the Legal Affairs Department of the Corps within 5 working days. The Legal Affairs Department of the Corps shall review the evaluation results and suggestions, and make corrections in time if there are any irregularities.

Highlight 2: Set up "7+22" evaluation index.

The "Evaluation Measures" set up seven types of law enforcement efficiency evaluation indicators, such as law enforcement case handling, law enforcement action, law enforcement inspection, law enforcement inspection, handling of letters and visits, and file review, with a full score of 100 points. Among them, the evaluation index categories of municipal public facilities law enforcement detachment and city landscaping law enforcement detachment are law enforcement case handling, law enforcement action, law enforcement inspection, law enforcement inspection, handling of letters and visits and complaints, file evaluation, and implementation of the law popularization responsibility system; The evaluation index categories of urban illegal construction law enforcement detachment are law enforcement cases, law enforcement actions, law enforcement inspections, letters and visits, complaints and reports, file evaluation, and the implementation of the legal responsibility system.

At the same time, combined with the actual dynamics, the number of cases handled, the settlement rate, and the performance rate of administrative punishment authority were formulated, and 22 annual evaluation indicators were set. For example, in terms of bonus points, it is stipulated that the Municipal Urban Management Bureau or other municipal departments should be promoted to issue targeted and innovative normative documents on urban management law enforcement or relevant documents on urban governance, and each item should be added with 1 point; Promote the municipal government or the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development to issue targeted and innovative normative documents on urban management law enforcement or relevant documents on urban governance, and add 3 points for each piece. In terms of reduction of sub-items, 1 point will be deducted for each case that does not meet the requirements of the basic project of the Guide for the Evaluation and Search of Administrative Punishment Files of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction System, and 1 point will be deducted for each uncivilized law enforcement behavior.

Highlight 3: nine situations of "one-vote veto" are clarified.

The "Evaluation Measures" stipulates that if each law enforcement detachment of the Corps has one of nine situations, the evaluation result will be directly determined as substandard, and the person in charge of the law enforcement detachment and relevant responsible personnel will be interviewed.

These nine situations include: finding clues about illegal acts, meeting the conditions for filing a case, and not filing a case for investigation without justifiable reasons; Receiving letters and visits and complaints, refusing to accept matters within the scope of statutory duties or failing to handle and correct the problems according to law; Altering, concealing, forging, stealing evidence materials or instigating, supporting or instructing others to commit perjury, which affects the fair handling of administrative punishment cases; The people’s court or the administrative reconsideration organ makes a judgment or decision to revoke or partially revoke, change or confirm the violation of the law; Being determined by the people’s court or the administrative reconsideration organ as failing to perform the statutory duties, and the judgment or decision is fulfilled within a certain period of time; Being decided by the administrative organ at a higher level to revoke the specific law enforcement act or order it to perform its statutory duties; Due to the fault of law enforcement, resulting in state compensation; Law enforcement officers have been given disciplinary sanctions or investigated for criminal responsibility for law enforcement faults, violations of discipline and law; Due to work mistakes or law enforcement mistakes, serious law enforcement conflicts or negative public opinion events have occurred, resulting in adverse social impacts.

Highlight 4: Set up a fault-tolerant mechanism for four situations.

Considering some special circumstances, the "Evaluation Measures" set up a fault-tolerant mechanism to guide law enforcement team members to be realistic and pragmatic, and to create achievements that can stand the test of practice.

The "Evaluation Measures" clarify that if one of the four situations occurs in each law enforcement detachment of the Corps, no points will be deducted, including those that are controversial due to unclear laws, regulations and rules; Due to the fault of the administrative counterpart or due to unpredictable and irresistible reasons, the law enforcement fault occurs; Having fulfilled the obligation of reasonable inspection, investigation and review, but the law enforcement fault has occurred due to the pre-behavior errors such as inspection, detection, expert conclusion and assistance in identification; Due to the limitation of objective conditions such as science and technology, supervision means, etc., the problems can not be found or the law enforcement mistakes can not be determined.

Highlight 5: further strengthen the combination of examination and use

Only by combining the assessment results with training and education, management and supervision, encouragement and restraint, accountability and accountability, promotion and demotion, and treating mediocrity and laziness can the enthusiasm, initiative and creativity of party member cadres be mobilized to the maximum extent.

The "Evaluation Method" defines three grades of evaluation results: excellent, up to standard and not up to standard. Among them, those who score more than 90 points are excellent grades, those who score more than 60 points but less than 90 points are up to standard grades, and those who score less than 60 points are not up to standard.

Among them, the evaluation result of law enforcement effectiveness is excellent, and the person in charge of law enforcement detachment and relevant law enforcement personnel are given priority in the evaluation. If the evaluation result of law enforcement efficiency is not up to standard, the person in charge of the law enforcement detachment shall be disqualified from the annual assessment and evaluation, and the corps shall admonish the person in charge of the law enforcement detachment; If the evaluation results of law enforcement effectiveness are not up to standard for two consecutive years, the responsible person of the law enforcement detachment shall be transferred from his post according to the cadre management authority.