Renata Puscasu

Politico-administrative relations in local governments

The case of Romania

NISPAcee CONFERENCE, 2001

S U M M A R Y

Chap. 1. Introduction							pag. 3

Chap. 2. Overview of the administrative structure of the state		pag. 4

Chap.3.1. Short history of public administration				pag. 5

         3.2. Short history of civil service law in Romania			pag.7

Chap.4. Formal relations, constitutional and legal norms,           	pag. 8
guiding relations between elected politicians and appointed officials

Chap.5. Political culture and attitudes					pag.11

Chap.6. Political process in practise					pag.12

Chap.7. Conclusions							pag. 14

Sources and references							pag. 15

	

Chapter.1. INTRODUCTION

Over the past 10 years many historical, social and political events have taken place in former communist countries. In most of East European countries the process of state- building and mainly the establishment of local self-government began with 1990.
	Romania stepped onto its way to democracy in 1990 together with its first “democratic’ government, in fact a neo-communist one. While initiating fundamental transformation of the state structures and economy, that first government faced the difficulty to carry out the transformation process in such a way that it could possibly quickly, without tension and unnecessary social costs, lay foundation of a democratic state governed by law, and with a new economic order, based on the principles of the free market. That moment, a dynamic economic reform was needed but because the change was done through a spontaneous movement, the new government did not have the specialists needed. A rudimentary program for the democratic transformation of  the system provided for a profound decentralisation of the state structures, according to the principles of the subsidiary. The restitution of the local government became the most important element of the program. 
The change of the administrative system was done by the Constitution from 1991, Law of the Local Public Administration in 1991, Law 70/1991and later in 1999, by the Local Public Finances Law and the Public Servant Law . They created the necessary environment for transferring an important part of the administrative authority from the central to the local level.
	The public administration reform is the main objective of the Government program and measures to implement the socio-economic reform in the entire society, stipulating clear objectives,goals and ways to realize them. These were set up based on the principle that the central and local public administration are determinant in the implementation of the Socio-economic Reform Program, because of their presence in all fields of activity being, in fact,  the interface with the population. 
	In this view, it is obvious that the reform should start with the public administration, pointing on the idea that the administrative system must serve the citizens not viceversa.
Since 1989 Romania has had 2 presidents, passed through 3 elections campaigns, in 1992, 1996 and 2000. 

YEAR	GOVERNMENT	PRESIDENT	
1989-1992	National Salvation Front
(left)	Ion Iliescu	
1992-1996	Social-Democratic Party from Romania
(left )	Ion Iliescu	
1996	Coalition of parties	Emil Constantinescu	
2000	Social- Democratic Party from Romania	Ion Iliescu	

Despite of this and because of those 40 years of one party system, Romania does not have the basic components of the politics: culture, a political class and public opinion. After 11 years it is obvious that we still don’t have modern political parties, horizontally structured not vertically, with specialized centers for the policies analyze and elaboration. The party’s life is only in the Parliament, the only debates and communications being realized in talk shows.

Chapter 2. OVERVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE STATE

	The Constitution adopted on November 21, 1991, laid the foundations for the establishment of the country’s present-day administrative institutions. The Constitution also established a semi-presidential system of government, the highest executive bodies being the President of the Republic and the Government headed by the Prime Minister. The Government is approved by the Parliament.
	Four articles of the Constitution regulate the general regime of local public administration, establishing two major constitutional principles: the principle of local autonomy and the principle of decentralization of public services.
	These two principles are inforced by the Law of the Local public Administration adopted in November 26, 1991.
The de-centralization of the public administration is based on the territorial-administrative organization of the territory (Constitution, art.3). According to the same principle, the Romanian public administration system is divided in two groups:
1.	Authorities and organs of central public administration- president, Government, Parliament, ministries, other institutions and public services organized at central level
2.	Authorities of local public administration- County Council, Local Council, Prefecture, City Hall, other institutions and public services organized at this level
The President is elected for a four-year mandate through direct, universal, equal, secret and freely expressed vote for a four-year mandate. He can be re-elected only once. His prerogatives are in the following area: legislation, organization and functioning of public bodies, appointments, and defense of the state and public order and foreign policy. 	The President nominates a candidate for Prime Minister, after consulting the party with an absolute majority in Parliament.
The Government as the central executive body, controls public administration, implements domestic and foreign policies, directs and supervises the activities of ministries and bodies of the central and local administration and ensures that the administration complies with the law.
The members of the government may not hold any other public or private office, other than that of deputy or senator.
The principle of local autonomy in Romania is realized by the local councils and mayors elected, locally, according to the Local Elections Law. They function as autonomous administrative bodies in charge of local affairs and are not in any hierarchical relation to the administrative authorities at the county or central level. The county council is also elected and functions as a coordinator of the activities of local councils with respect to the carrying out of public services in the whole county.
In each county and in the Municipality of Bucharest, the Government appoints a prefect to represent the central authorities. 
The prefect is the head of the local offices of ministries and other agencies of central administration. As representative of the government, the prefect ensures that local and county councils and mayors perform their duties in accordance with the law. There are no hierarchical relationships between prefects and local councils.
Prefects have a number of functions concerned with reviewing the legality of administrative decisions of public and county authorities and ensuring compliance with the law and with public order. To ensure respect for the law, the prefect may delegate responsibilities of local and county authorities, except those concerning day-to-day management, before the administrative courts.

Chapter 3.1. SHORT HISTORY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION  

In the Romanian Principalities, administrative units existed even before the 16th century: districts in Wallachia and counties in Moldavia. The communal authority was made up of a leader and 12 jurors elected.
1830 brought up the Organic Regulations, which introduced the first principles of modern Romanian constitutional law, primarily the principle of separation of powers.
The modern public administration was born in 1864, with the adoption of the Law of the Communes in 1 April 1864, and the Law for the Creation of the County Councils, both of them inspired from the French legislation. 
	Those two laws stipulated, for the first time in Romania that “the county and the commune have legal status, with their own patrimony into administration. The county and the commune were leaded by elected councils, the mayor (in the commune) and the prefect (in the county).
The Constitution of 1 July 1866 strengthened the principle of administrative decentralization and local autonomy, stipulating that no local taxes should be enforced without the agreement of the county or commune council and that the administrative organization of the territory can be changed just by a law. 
The development of the human settlement, specially the towns, imposed the necessity of these 2 laws, which determined an increasing of the Civil Service dimension. The Civil Servants represented an authority for the citizens, these positions, being, in the meantime, the ideal for most of the people. 
The inter-war period strengthened the administrative decentralization adopting the Administrative Law from 5 August 1929 modified then through the Administrative Law in 1938. What they brought, important, were the administrative- territorial changes: the commune, district, county and province. Only the commune and province had legal personality. The Civil Service increased in number and modifies its structure. For the first time was stipulated that the Prefect was a career civil servant, appointed by royal decree to lead the employees of the Ministry of Interior in the district. What is interesting in these laws is that the rural communes had an elected council but the mayor was elected from the councilors.
The institution of the Prefect was established and strengthened by the Administrative Laws from 1864, 1892, 1925 and 1929. At the beginning, the prefect was the representative of the general interest and leader of the county administration. Beginning with 1929, the Prefect represents the central government.
The Communism changed the whole administrative system preserving the territorial divisions with an adagio: the region.  The Grand National Assembly and the County led the public administration system and Popular Councils replaced Local Councils. The members of the Grand National Assembly were elected periodically but only at the Communist party proposals, in the Popular Councils case the members being named at the Local Communist Party proposals.
On the 13 April 1948 the Grand National Assembly approved the Constitution, which preserved the previous administrative- territorial divisions, creating the region as a new administrative unit
The Constitution institutionalized the people’s councils, as specialized local organs constituted as branches of activity. The hierarchy was total and very strict, both vertically and horizontally.
On 6 Sept. 1950 a soviet type administrative organization of the territory was created, with the introduction as administrative units, besides the commune and the town, of the district and the region
The Constitution adopted on 21 august 1965 stipulated:
•	the foundation for the whole system of state organs was the Grand National Assembly and the people’s council
•	their mandate was for 5 years at the county level and two and a half years in towns and villages
•	dual subordination was reintroduced- central and local- in the specialized organs of the administration and in the worsening of centralism and in the power concentration, which became apparent also through the new right of the people’s council to appoint and dismiss judges
•	the appointment of the people’s councils was strictly under the control of the party structures
•	the mayor had no competition and were nominated as candidates by the secretaries of the Communist Party’s committees

Being at the beck and call of a state party that restricted individual and collective freedoms and the right to self-administration of the citizens, the people were turned from subjects into object of a policy. The economic and psychosocial consequences of those restrictions are dramatically faced today also by the local public administration, deprived of any means to face their responsibilities.
The political administrative system spanned every organization, public institution and economic enterprise in a single network of relations of subordination, coordination and control, led from the center by the nomenclature of the Romanian Communist Party (RCP) that held the key posts, both in the party hierarchy and in the state structure.
The Political Executive and the Central Committee of the RCP were the only authorities with powers to draw up policies for all the domains and sectors, the other institutions of power and state administration, including the management structures of the economy, having only execution functions. 
The main role of the Government and of the ministries was to administer the activities of all institutions and organizations in their own domain, from economic units to mass media, schools, hospitals, fire brigades, etc. practically covering all decisions concerned
At a territorial-administrative level, the network of central organizations used to administer, control and lead all units of execution, being doubled by the structures and sections of the RCP committees. The main element of subordination was the central and drastic control on resources of any form, from the allocation of raw materials and funding, to the control and establishment of the number of staff and wages.
1989 can be defined as the year of revolution in Europe. The walls of ideology crumbled, democracy triumphed in the eastern part of the continent. The change was fast, at times violent and radical, causing the disappearance of the communist-type totalitarian client systems.
	The new Constitution adopted in 1991 laid the foundation of the new decentralized public administration system. The territorial division of the state is kept: commune, town- city, county.

	3.2.SHORT HISTORY OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW IN ROMANIA

	The term of “public servant status” appeared first in the Romanian from 1923. Based on this stipulation, on June 1923 was adopted the Law for the public servants status followed by the Rules for application. The law was available till 1940 when the Decree for the Public Servants Code was promulgated. 
	During he mentioned period the Status was so many times amended that in the end it was applicable just for the public servants from the central level.
	In 1934 the Law for simplifying the public services, the Decree for amending the illegal employment, appointments of the public servants were two unsuccessful governmental actions for imposing the Status from 1923.
	After all the unsuccessful actions for respecting and imposing the Status, on June 1940, the Law for the public servants code was promulgated, but 2 years later was modified.
	The Code was abrogated in 1946 through the Law of the public servants status abrogated in 1949. The Labor Code from 1950 settled the employees labor relations and also for the public servants.

Chapter 4. FORMAL RELATIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL NORMS, GUIDING RELATIONS BETWEEN ELECTED POLITICIANS AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
	
The classic theory of the separation of powers within the state settled that each state has 3 functions: legislative, executive and juridical. To each function correspond a power: the legislative (the Parliament), the executive (the President, ministries) and the juridical power. What is really important for a democracy is that actually the division of power means not only division but also government independence.
The legislative power is hold by the Parliament, the only legislator of the state. The main function of the Parliament is the legislative one realized through the ediction of the juridical norms (laws). According to the Constitution the Parliament can edict 3 types of laws: constitutional laws, organic laws and ordinary laws. The constitutional laws modify the Constitution; the organic laws regards the election system, the political parties, referendum, Government organization, public servants status, administrative law, social protection, organization of the public administration system, etc.; the ordinary laws regards the other social relations.
The executive power is called on different ways  “ executive power”, “administrative authority” or “state administration”. What is really important is that all the terminology defines the position and state organs responsible for carrying out the laws. The components of the executive are the President, the Government, the ministries and other central organs of public administration and the local public administration.
The constitutional relations between the public authorities are characterized by mutual interference in the activities, the significance being “equilibrium through collaboration and control”.
The relations Parliament- Executive means the interference of the Parliament into the President and government activity. Just some examples: the Parliament can prolong the President’s mandate in case of war, ratifies the international treaties signed by the president can suspend the President if he encroach upon the Constitution, can withdraw the support given to the government.
The relations Executive –Parliament are also an interference as it could be seen: the President can ask to dissolve the Parliament, the government has legislative initiative, can ask for the urgent procedure in the law adoption, can assume the responsibility in front of the Parliament for a program or strategy.
The specialists strongly agreed that the executive is well prepared to realize their role. From political point of view the members of the executive are rulers, leaders of the major party. From institutional point of view the executive has all the administrative and financial ways to carry on the law. These are enough arguments for the executive. The difficulty resides on the real role of the political parties in the state authority activities. It is well known that the political party winner of the elections can impose its political will through Parliament and Government.
	The legislative interfere in the executive activity on many ways:
•	the legislative establish the laws which the executive must carry on;
•	the Parliament approves the program for governance of the executive;
•	the Parliament approves the legislative delegation, meaning that the Government is forced to edict juridical norms 
•	the Parliament controls the Government activity
As we have already specified according to the Constitution the public administration is a subsystem inside the public authority system.
The Romanian system of public administration has a hierarchic- functional structure. In the public administration structure, this structure is the mix one, a mix between the hierarchical structure, which assure the unity of management, and the functional structure, which determine the plurality in managing. 
According to some specialists in administrative law, according to the way of formation the public administration organs can be classified in:
•	elected – local councils, county councils, mayors
•	appointed – ministers, prefects, managers of the decentralized public services of the ministries
My paper refers to the politico-administrative relations at local level so I will
analyse the relations from 2 points of view:
1.	relations between elected authorities (local and county council) and appointed officials( prefect)
2.	relations between elected authorities (local,county councils, mayor) and the public servants subordinated

4.1. Relations between elected authorities (local and county council) and appointed officials( prefect)

The local public administration has an important place in the public administration system. The local public administration is organized in the territorial administrative units of the state: the communes, towns and counties. 
According to the Law of Public Administration, the local public administration is organized in the respect of the local autonomy principle realized in communes and towns by the local councils as deliberative authorities and mayors as executive authorities, and in counties through the county council and their presidents. 
The Local councils are formed by councilors elected; the number of the councilors depends on the number of inhabitants. The local council duties regard the administration of the town, the local budget and taxes, the administration of the public and private domain of the town and the public order. They are also responsible for the appointment of the vice-mayors and the setting up of local institutions. The councilors can be dismissed to the prefect proposal, by the government.
The mayor is elected and has a 4 years mandate. He is responsible for the administration of the public problems like the local budget, the legal obligation of the town, appoints the local public servants, authorized the activity. He also act as a governmental representative regarding the respect of the laws and governmental dispositions, the elections organization, the civil state acts. In this view he can give local resolutions. The secretary of the town hall, legally, is a career public servant and has an important role in the public activity. It is absolutely necessary to be a lawyer. Even it is considered a career job, the Secretary of the town halls is also a political position because is appointed and can be dismissed by the Prefect (art.52) even art. 51 stipulate that the secretary cannot be a member of a political party or organization.
The County Council is the body the public administration is realized in the county, being directly elected. A president elected by the councilors from the councilors rules it. It represents the local collectivity and it is not hierarchical superior to the local council. The president of the county council is responsible for the county duties as the county budget, appoints the county public servants, and distributes the local budgets in the county.
The Prefect is an important body in the decentralized public administration. He is a governmental agent representing the executive power and the central public administration at the county level. The prefect is appointed by the government (art.96- the Law of the Public Administration). Just the government can dismiss him. The real significance of the appointment and dismissal of the prefect, by the Government, is that of the institutionalization of a function “the political prefect”. They cannot be in the meantime members of the Parliament or the county and local councils or mayors. According to the law the relations between prefect and elected local councils are not of subordination.
The prefect duties are:
•	appoint and dismiss the managers of the public services of the ministries at local level
•	controls the legality of the administrative papers promulgated by the local and county council and the mayor
•	can ask to dissolve the local or county council if their dispositions are not  legal
•	can ask the mayor’s adjuration 

4.2. Relations between elected authorities (local, county councils, mayor) and the public servants subordinated

Administrative Code defines the ” public servant” as the person who was legally invested, appointed or elected, in a public position, in order to realize a continuous remunerated activity that gives him specific rights and obligations. 
	The Law for the Public Servants Status from 1999, modified in 2000, defines the “public servant” as the person appointed in a public position. The “public position” represents the duties and responsibilities established by the public authority or institution for realising its competencies.
	According to the same law, the public servant’s activities will be protected by any political interference. The public servants are selected and appointed based on an open competition and followed a certain carrer.
	What is really interesting in the law is that the public servants can participate in the election, having the right to be suspended during their political mandate. In december 2000 a special law stipulated that the public servant can hold also an elected position. In April 2001, the new elected government modified the Local Public Administration Law stipulating that a public servant cannot be an elected official simultaneously.
	The public servants from the own apparatus of the Local or County Council, Prefecture are directly subordinated to the Mayor, the President of the County Council or Prefect. 

CAP.5. POLITICAL CULTURE AND ATTITUDES

	The role civil servants are expected to play in relations to their political masters, and the public opinion toward civil servants can be the subject of a real and big analyze.
	Going back into the Romanian history, we will see that the political subordination existed all the time.  
	In the Communist Regime the political administrative system spanned every public institution in a single network of relations of subordination, coordination and control, led from the center by the Communist Party. At the territorial level, the network of central organizations used to administer, control and lead all units of execution, being doubled by the structures and sections of the Communist Party committees. Every position was occupied by the nomination of the C.P., after a deep check and on the condition of being a C.P. member. The Public Administration was very important for the political leaders because could be a source of control over the citizens so the political principle was applied mainly here. The politics and public administration were a whole. The public opinion did not make any difference between the governmental and political actions and the public servants; the attitude toward the government was reflected in the attitude toward civil servants.
	After 1989 the situation has changed. The statute and duties of the civil servants are regulated by the Constitution adopted in 1991, the Law of the Public Administration (1991), Law 30/1990 and the Public Servant Law from 1999. These three documents stipulated that the public servants can carry out two types of position inside the public administration system: political positions (ministers, state secretaries, prefects, mayors) and professional positions. It is supposed that the civil servants are professional, not political engaged but the reality is that they are a very good political manipulated mass. The Public Servant Law was waited since 1923 but mainly after 1989 in the view that will protect the public servant against the political pressure. Analysing the law we cannot conclude that this thing will ever be possible. According to the law a public servant has the right to candidate for an elected public position and if it will succeed, at the end of the mandate the institution where he worked before has the obligation to give him the position back. 
	According to the law, the Public Servant Body will be lead by the National Agency of the Public Servants under the Government’s authority. The president of the National Agency will be appointed by the Prime Minister. The Agency will be entitled and responsible for all the laws and legal norms necessary to the public servants. Inside each public institution will be created a commission formed by legal representatives and trade union representatives which will take care about the work condition, health and security but its vote will be just consultative.
	The public servant rights are very strict but he has the right not to be discriminate on political basis. So the only protection against the political interference into his life will be this paragraph. The wage will be set up by a special law which will be created in the view of a “ necessary” reduction of the number of public servants. What is interesting is that the other rights are the same rights stipulated by the Labour Code and Constitution. We can say that this law is in fact a compendium of all the already existing labour laws.
	What is interesting nowadays, is that the public opinion toward the civil servant changed, in the way that the civil service is considered a separate entity from the government, the politicians. A public survey revealed that 76 % of the citizens who have administrative problems have a good opinion about the civil servants. The citizens are satisfied that their problem was solved in time, the public servant was kind without any bribes. The general opinion is that the government is responsible for the problems in administration because 40% of citizens think that there is bureaucracy in the public administration, 37% think the public servants are bureaucrats, 27% think that the small salary is the cause of the public servants attitude towards citizens, 54% thinking that a raising would be the solution for a kinder behavior.
	 
CAP.6. POLITICAL PROCESS IN PRACTISE

	According to the Romanian Constitution, the local public administration functions on the base of the administrative autonomy and de-centralization principles. The elected local councils and mayor realize the local autonomy.
	Romania is a semi-presidential republic with a bi-cameral parliament and a president. 	The Parliament is the unique legislative authority of the country. 
	The members of the Parliament and the President of the republic are elected. During his mandate, the President is not allowed to act as a member of a political party. The President proposes the Prim-minister and appoints the members of the Government. 
	The members of the Government are selected from the members of the Parliament. 
	The Prim-minister leads the Government and the Government leads the public administration system. The government realizes its competencies in plenum through the deliberative activities adopting resolutions and rulings.
	The County and Local Councils and the Mayors represent the autonomy of the local administration. The Prefect, who acts as the governmental representative in the territory, supervises these institutions, controlling the legality of the administrative papers edited, having the power to adjure the mayor and to dissolve the Councils.
	What is absolutely obvious in practice in the local public administration is the interference of the politics in it. 
Let’s take the case of a Town Hall. 
The Mayor and the Local Council are elected. The candidates at these public positions are 99%, members of different political parties so finally these positions become political positions. 
That is why the reality shows us 2 different situations:
1.	the Mayor and the majority of the Council from the same political party which lead the country
2.	the Mayor from a party, the Local Council from the leading political party (the party which won the Parliamentary elections)
3.	the Mayor and the majority of the Council from the same political party other than that lead the country

I had the privilege to study all types, and the results are remarkable.
In the first case the two bodies cooperate and work profitable for the community deciding together the better measures for the community benefit. 85% of the acts proposed in the Council meetings are approved with a majority and the results of their application in reality shows that they are well thought. The Mayor and the Local Council are supporting the actions and decisions of each other. The big danger in this case is having a not so thinkable mayor. What is well-seen in this case, if you visit this city, is the good administration of the local problem, and the financial resources found by the local administration, who have a very good public image. The Mayor tried to apply a politics inside the City Hall based on the competency principle. But, in the key positions, like chief-office, secretary of the Local Council, managers, he preferred to appoint people who trusts and who are generally from the same political party. The members of his political party have better access to him and a better influence in the city.
In the second case the situation is very delicate. If you visit that town you can understand what that mean.  (Fortunately, in this case, the mayor acts mainly as a mayor not a politician). The Local Council meetings are a real fight, the Mayor trying to do the best for the community and the Local Council trying to do the worse for the Mayor’s public image. The results are: disastrous public acts, mess in the public life, lack of financial resources, everybody being occupied to destroy the other’s image not building him a good image. In the administrative apparatus inside the Town Hall is a real mess, existing different groups of interests, everybody is preoccupied by his self-advantages, nobody is loyal to the mayor. The big mistake of this mayor was and is that, after he was elected, he did not appoint in the key positions inside the town hall what we call “his people”.
In the three cases it was obvious that the mayor and the Local Council had to agree on a consensus with the representative of the party leading the country. Not only for easier administrative decisions but also from financial point of view because the allocation from the central government are given by the County Council which is of the parliamentary party. 
The conclusion is that is not possible a clear demarcation between politics and civil service. Politics will always influence the local decisions as long as this public administration system will exist.
Going to an upper level with the analyze, to the relation Prefecture-Local Council, we will see also the political influence because the Prefect is named by the government, being a political position. In our case studies the Prefects are from the opposite political side. Both of them have orders to protect and support the mayor from their side; and that is exactly they are doing.
Referring to the implementation of the governmental decision, what is clear is that the law obliges the local administration to put them into practice. There is no way out.

Chapter.7. CONCLUSIONS

It is well known that Romania is in a deep process of change in all the fields. The politico-administrative system as all others is looking for its identity and form. Because we have a 40 years inheritance, the change will take longer than in any other European country. We will have to build our own political tradition and to adapt the society to it.  In our field is clear that we are moving faster to a clear separation by politics and the creation of a civil service body, increasing focus on professional criteria.
In my view, a potential solution would be the change of the public administration system, eliminating the political positions from it. I know that this is a radical solution and is not possible, so I think it is enough if we would improve the training of the public servants, set up more professional institutions for public servants, change the Public Servants Status, educate the citizens regarding their civil rights, change the mentalities of the people both citizens and public servants, educate the citizens about their constitutional and political rights.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

1.  Romanian Constitution, 1991
1.	Romanian Law of Public Administration, 1991
2.	The Public Servant Law, 1999
3.	Dr. Alexandru Negoita- Drept Administrativ
4.	Dr. Eugen Popa – Autonomia locala in Romania, 
Ed. ‘ALL BECK’-1999
5.	Dr. Valentin I. Prisacaru – Tratat de drept administrativ roman, 
Ed. “LUMINA LEX” – 1993
6.	Dr. Armenia Androniceanu – Management public, 
Ed. Economica- 1999
7.	Dennis J. Galligan, Daniel M. Smilov – Administrative Law in Central and Eastern Europe, “CEU Press”-1999
8.	B.G.Peters- Comparing Public Bureaucracies:Problems of Theory and Methods
9.	Leemans – “Changing patterns of public administration”
10.	Dr. Tudor Draganu – Drept constitutional si institutii politice, 
Ed. LUMINALEX –1998
11.	Dr. Ioan Muraru – Drept constitutional si institutii politice, 
Ed. ACTAMI- 1998