However, this is not to say that experiments of public hearing in rate-fixing contexts are completely a failure. As a matter of practice, some local governments have tried to institutionalize hearing in the context of price-fixing or rate setting. For example, in January 1999, Shangxi provincial government adopted the “Hearing Procedures for Policy Making”, which clarifies key issues of hearing procedure, including situations in which public hearing procedures must be applied, selection of participants of hearing, qualifications of hearing officials, and so forth. The rule also emphasizes transparency of hearing process by providing that journalists may observe hearing process and may report to the public. Other provinces such as Zhejiang and Guangdong have adopted similar regulations or rules.
As a response to public criticism and an effort to institutionalize the hearing procedure in price-fixing or rate-setting contexts, the State Committee on Planning and Development declared in September 2000 that a Regulation on Hearing Procedures in Price-fixing Process had been formulating. Later, on July 2, 2001, this rule was issued by the Committee, and came into force as of August 1, 2001. [4]The rule can be deemed as a giant step forward in terms of institutionalizing public hearing. It stipulates that an index of matters requiring public hearing shall be formulated and made public. It also provides specific requirements concerning the principles of hearing, the qualifications of hearing officer, the qualifications of participants, and other procedural requirements for operating a public hearing. More importantly, the rule emphasizes that a record of hearing must be maintained and in case opinions or arguments held by participants of hearing are rejected, reasons must be given. However, the rule does not clarify whether judicial review shall be available if participants are not satisfactory with the process of hearing or the outcome made thereof.
第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页
|