All town governments, subdistrict offices and agencies directly under the district government,
The Provisions of Panyu District on Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures have been deliberated and approved at the standing committee meeting of the district Party committee and the executive meeting of the district government, and are hereby issued for your compliance and implementation. Problems encountered in the implementation shall be directly reported to the district bureau of justice.
Panyu District People’s Government of Guangzhou Municipality
November 3, 2022
Provisions of Panyu District on Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures
Chapter 1 General Principles
Article 1These provisions are formulated based on the actual conditions of Panyu District, in accordance with the Provisional Regulations on Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures, Provisions of Guangdong Province on Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures, Provisions of Guangzhou Municipality on Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures, etc., with the purposes of upholding and strengthening the Party’s comprehensive leadership over major administrative decision-making, improving the mechanism of scientific, democratic and law-based decision-making, standardizing the government’s major administrative decision-making procedures, improving decision-making quality and efficiency, and clarifying decision-making responsibilities.
Article 2These provisions apply to the district government in making and adjusting major administrative decisions.
Agencies under the district government, town governments (subdistrict offices), and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs shall make and adjust major administrative decisions with reference to these provisions.
Article 3The major administrative decisions herein refer to those made by decision-making agencies in accordance with their statutory functions and powers and according to the law on the following affairs that have a bearing on the overall economic and social development of the district, involve major public interests, and are closely related to the interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations:
(1) Making major public policies and measures related to public service, market supervision, social management, urban greening, urban construction, ecological and environmental protection, etc.;
(2) Making important plans for economic and social development;
(3) Making major public policies and measures on developing, utilizing and protecting important natural resources and cultural resources;
(4) Deciding on the major public construction projects to be implemented in the district;
(5) Deciding on other important matters that have significant impacts on economic and social development, and involve major public interests or the vital interests of the public.
Where there are other provisions in laws and administrative regulations on the decision-making procedures of the matters as specified above, those provisions shall prevail. These provisions do not apply to financial policies, emergency response policies, or the decisions to implement the established policies and deployments of higher authorities and forward documents issued by higher authorities without attaching implementation opinions.
Article 4When making major administrative decisions, agencies should uphold and strengthen the Party’s comprehensive leadership, thoroughly implement the Party’s routes, principles, policies, decisions and deployments, give full play to the Party’s leading role, and implement the Party’s leadership in the whole decision-making process.
Before major administrative decisions come into force, the government Party group shall report to the Party committee at the same level in accordance with the Regulations of the Communist Party of China on Reporting Major Matters.
Article 5In the first quarter of each year, the district government shall compile a catalogue of major administrative decision-making matters and a catalogue of major administrative decision-making matters for hearing. These catalogues shall be subject to the scope of matters specified in Article 3 herein and shall be based on the district government’s duties, authorities, and local conditions. They should be made public as per the established procedure upon the approval of the district Party committee.
Matters that are not listed in the catalogue of major administrative decision-making matters but fall within the scope specified in Article 3 herein are subject to the provisions on the major administrative decision-making procedures.
The catalogue and standard of major administrative decision-making matters shall be dynamically managed and adjusted as appropriate according to the actual situation.
Article 6Major administrative decisions shall be made scientifically and democratically according to law. Procedures such as public participation, expert evaluation, risk assessment, legality review, group discussion and decision, and public release shall be performed.
Article 7The district government office is responsible for implementing these provisions and coordinating the major administrative decision-making in the district.
The district bureau of justice is responsible for the legality review of the major administrative decision-making of the district government, and the guidance and supervision of the major administrative decision-making of agencies under the district government, town governments (subdistrict offices), and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs.
Agencies under the district government, town governments (subdistrict offices), and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs are responsible for the drafting, public participation, expert evaluation, risk assessment, release, implementation, and post-implementation evaluation of major administrative decisions
Chapter 2 Formation of Decision Draft
Section 1 Initiation of Decision-making
Article 8Agencies under the district government, town governments (subdistrict offices), and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs shall put forward suggestions of major administrative decision-making on the matters falling within the scope specified in Article 3 herein according to the division of responsibilities and key tasks.
Top officials of the district government, deputies to the people’s congress, CPPCC members, citizens, legal persons or other organizations may submit their suggestions on major administrative decision-making to the district government, agencies under the district government, town governments (subdistrict offices), and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs.
Article 9Agencies under the district government, town governments (subdistrict offices), and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs shall submit written proposals to the district government for major administrative decision-making matters. A written proposal shall mainly include the following contents:
(1) Necessity and feasibility analysis;
(2) Legal basis including applicable laws, regulations, rules and policy documents;
(3) Main issues to be solved;
(4) Main measures to be taken; and
(5) Other relevant documents.
Citizens, legal persons or other organizations that put forward proposals of major administrative decision-making matters may only provide the names of matters, legal basis, and main reasons.
Article 10The proposals of the major administrative decision-making matters put forward by various parties shall be discussed and evaluated according to the Provisional Regulations on Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures, Provisions of Guangdong Province on Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures, and Provisions of Guangzhou Municipality on Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures, and then reported to the district government for a decision on whether to start the decision-making procedures.
In case relevant agencies are divided on whether a matter is for major administrative decision-making and cannot reach a consensus, it shall be submitted to the district government for decision.
If the district government decides to start the decision-making procedures, it shall assign decision-making organizers, which will be responsible for drafting major administrative decisions. If the major administrative decision-making matters require to be organized by more than two agencies, a leading decision-making organizer should be designated.
Article 11During the drafting process of major administrative decisions, the decision-making organizer shall conduct extensive investigation and research, collect comprehensive and accurate data, and fully negotiate and coordinate with relevant agencies. For major administrative decision-making matters that require sophisticated and specialized expertise, experts in relevant fields can be invited, or relevant experts, academic and research institutes, and social organizations can be entrusted to draft the decisions.
The decision-making organizer shall sort out all the laws, regulations, rules and policies related to the major administrative decision-making matters, so that the decision draft is legal, compliant, and in line with relevant policies. The decision-making organizer shall, as required, analyze and forecast the costs such as labor and financial investment, resource consumption and environmental impacts, as well as economic, social and environmental benefits, which are involved in the decision-making matters.
In case there are great differences over major administrative decision-making matters and multiple schemes are required to be compared, the decision-making organizer shall draw up more than two alternative schemes and provide the merits and demerits of each scheme.
Article 12If the major administrative decision-making matters involve or closely relate to the responsibilities of agencies under the district government, town governments (subdistrict offices) and other organizations, the decision-making organizer shall solicit opinions from these related entities and reach a consensus with them through full consultation. If no consensus can be reached, the organizer shall explain to the district government the main issues in dispute, the opinions of relevant parties, the decision-making organizer’s opinions, as well as the reasons and basis thereof.
Article 13The decision-making organizer shall conduct a fair competition review according to the provisions when drawing up a draft decision on the production and operation activities of market entities, including market access and withdrawal, industrial development, investment promotion, bidding and tendering, government procurement, business codes, qualifications, and standards.
Section 2 Public Participation
Article 14The decision-making organizer shall adopt methods that facilitate the participation of citizens, legal persons or other organizations and specific groups to fully solicit the opinions of the public, except for major decision-making matters involving state secrets, commercial secrets and/or other information which should not be disclosed in accordance with the law.
In principle, the decision-making organizer shall openly solicit opinions from the general public. According to the nature, complexity, impact, social attention, implementation conditions and other factors of the major administrative decision-making matters, the organizer can also do so through written solicitation of public opinions, hearings, symposiums, field investigation, social surveys, online platform interaction, communication and consultation with specific groups and other forms.
Article 15Where a major administrative decision-making matter concerns the interests of a particular group such as women, children, the elderly, or the disabled, the decision-making organizer shall communicate and negotiate with relevant people’s groups, social organizations, and representatives of the people to solicit the opinions and suggestions of relevant groups.
Where a major administrative decision-making matter closely relates to the business production and operation and may have a material impact on the immediate interest, rights or obligations of enterprises, the decision-making organizer should consult relevant enterprises, industry associations and chambers of commerce through symposiums, field investigation, questionnaires, or other channels before making a decision.
Where a major administrative decision-making matter involves overall economic and social development or the public interest, the decision drafter should widely solicit opinions, particularly from the relevant deputies to people’s congress and CPPCC members.
On major administrative decision-making matters concerning culture and education, medical and health care, public utilities, urban greening, urban construction, environmental protection, resources development, utilization and protection, and other areas of people’s wellbeing, the decision-making organizer may conduct opinion polls to learn about the public opinions on the decision-making matters, and form a public opinion survey report.
Article 16The district government shall make full use of the government website to engage with the public, release information, solicit opinions and provide feedback. It shall expand public participation channels and enhance communication and interaction with the public through social media, mobile internet, and other information network channels.
Article 17 When soliciting public opinions on major administrative decision-making matters, the decision-making organizer shall publish the draft decisions and relevant explanatory notes through government websites, new media platforms, newspapers, radio, television and other means that are easy for public access. In this case, the way and time limit for giving opinions. The time limit for public consultation is generally no less than 30 days. If the time limit needs to be shortened due to emergencies or other reasons, it shall be explained and shall be agreed upon by the main responsible person of the decision-making organizer.
The decision-making organizer may explain issues that are of general concern to the public or that are highly professional and technical through expert interviews, government new media platforms, and press conferences.
Article 18If the major administrative decision-making matters directly relate to the vital interests of citizens, legal persons, or other organizations or involve great disagreement, a hearing can be held. Where laws, regulations, and rules have other provisions on the convening of hearings, these provisions shall be followed.
Hearing procedures shall be implemented in accordance with relevant national, provincial, and municipal provisions.
Article 19When soliciting public opinions through a symposium, the decision-making organizer shall invite citizens, legal persons or representatives of organizations that are relevant to the major administrative decision-making matter under discussion to the symposium, and shall take minutes of the meeting to truthfully record the main views and reasons of all speakers.
When soliciting public opinions through social surveys, the decision-making organizer may entrust a disinterested third-party professional institution to conduct it. The third-party professional institution shall comply with the relevant confidentiality provisions when organizing the survey, and form a written survey report.
When collecting opinions through online platform interaction, the decision-making organizer shall clarify the main content of the major administrative decision-making matter and the time limit and formats for submitting opinions.
Article 20The decision-making organizer shall adopt those reasonable opinions and suggestions proposed by the public; for opinions and suggestions that are not adopted, the organizer shall explain the reasons, and provide timely feedback to the public through telephone, writing or online platform.
Section 3 Expert Evaluation
Article 21For major administrative decision-making matters that are highly professional or technical, the decision-making organizer shall organize experts or professional institutions to consult on and evaluate the necessity, feasibility and scientific nature of the decision draft.
Article 22Experts and professional institutions shall be selected based on their professionalism, representativeness, and neutrality. Experts and professional institutions with different opinions are preferable, and those with an immediate interest in the major administrative decision-making matters shall not be considered.
The expert evaluation panel should include industry experts and legal experts, with industrial experts as the mainstay. The specialty of these experts and institutions should be in line with the decision-making matters, and they should have authority and representativeness in their professional fields. When the decision-making matters involve multiple professional fields, experts and professional institutions of corresponding fields should be selected for the evaluation.
Article 23Experts and professional institutions can evaluate the decision-making matters from the following aspects:
(1) Their necessity.
(2) Their legality, feasibility, and scientific rationality.
(3) Timing and conditions for the decision.
(4) The possible negative impacts arising from the implementation of the decision on such aspects as social stability, urban greening, urban construction, ecological environment, resources development, utilization and protection, workplace safety, financial and economic performance, as well as the controllability of these impacts.
(5) Other aspects that need to be evaluated.
Article 24The decision-making organizer may organize experts and professional institutions for evaluation via such forms as evaluation meetings, written consultation, or entrusted consultation and evaluation.
When the decision-making organizer holds an evaluation meeting, it should provide the decision draft, explanatory notes, key points for evaluation and other related materials to the participating experts and professional institutions 7 days in advance.
Article 25The number of experts invited to the evaluation meeting shall be an odd number and no fewer than five; where the decision-making matter that has wide implications, is highly controversial, or involves complex and sensitive contents, that number should be not less than nine.
Article 26Experts and professional institutions shall provide evaluation opinions in an independent, objective, impartial and science-based manner, and shall fulfill the obligation of confidentiality on state secrets, commercial secrets and/or personal privacy of their knowledge. If a written evaluation is provided, it shall be signed by the experts and sealed by professional institutions.
The decision-making organizer shall support experts and professional institutions to carry out independent evaluation work, and must not explicitly or implicitly ask them to issue a tendentious opinion.
Article 27The decision-making organizer shall summarize and study the expert evaluation remarks and prepare an expert evaluation report for submission to the district government.
The decision-making organizer shall use the evaluation opinions and recommendations of the experts and professional institutions as an important reference for major administrative decision-making. It shall adopt those reasonable and feasible opinions and recommendations and explain the reasons for those that are not adopted.
Section 4 Risk Assessment
Article 28The decision-making organizer or the relevant entities designated by the organizer shall assess the risk of the impact of the decision draft on national security, political security, economic development, social stability, public safety, urban greening, urban construction, ecological environment, resources protection, etc., or entrust a third party such as a qualified professional institution or social organization to do so. When entrusting a third party to conduct a risk assessment, the decision-making organizer should ensure organizational coordination, supervision, and management, and provide the necessary support.
For decision-making matters that require environmental impact assessment or other special risk assessments as stipulated in laws, regulations and rules, assessments should be carried out as stipulated. If relevant risks have already been assessed and evaluated in accordance with relevant regulations and the situation has not changed significantly, there is no need to repeat the assessments.
Article 29Risk assessment shall focus on identifying the following risk points and risk sources that may affect social stability, public security, ecological environment, finance, urban greening, urban construction, and other aspects:
(1) Social stability risks, including situations that may lead to social conflicts and disputes, mass incidents or other social security incidents.
(2) Public safety risks, including situations that may cause personal injury or death, property damage or other hazards to public safety.
(3) Ecological and environmental risks, including situations that may cause major environmental pollution, ecological damage or secondary natural disasters.
(4) Financial and fiscal risks, including situations that may result in the loss of large amounts of financial resources, huge government debt, regional or systemic financial risk potential.
(5) Public opinion risks, including situations that may generate widespread and serious negative public responses.
(6) Resources protection risks, including situations that may result in destructive development, overload utilization or other situations that are detrimental to resource protection.
(7) Urban greening protection risks, including situations that may damage the historical and cultural landscape of the city, destroy old and valuable trees and other situations that affect the quality of urban greening.
(8) Urban construction protection risks, including the destruction of historical and cultural heritage, historical and cultural districts, historical buildings, or other situations that affect urban construction.
(9) Other risks that may arise.
Article 30The risk assessment shall be organized and carried out in accordance with the following procedures:
(1)Formulation of a risk assessment work plan. Based on the actual situation, the decision-making organizer shall formulate an assessment plan to clarify the purpose, objects, content, criteria, procedures and methods of the assessment.
(2)Solicitation of opinions on all fronts. The decision-making organizer shall listen to the opinions of stakeholders and the public through public opinion tracking, sample checking, key visits, consultation analysis, symposiums, etc.
(3) Comprehensive analysis and evaluation. Relevant organizations and experts shall be organized to conduct comprehensive analysis and research on the collected information, comprehensively search for risk sources and risk points, and give a science-based forecast and judgment on the possible risks of the decision based on qualitative and quantitative analyses and other methods.
(4) Determination of the controllability of risks. The decision-making organizer shall determine the controllability of risks according to the assessment.
(5) Preparation of a risk assessment report.
Article 31The risk assessment report shall include the following content:
(1) Assessment items and process.
(2) Assessment methods and basis.
(3) Opinions of all parties and their adoption status.
(4) Possible risks arising from the decision.
(5) Risk assessment conclusions and recommended countermeasures.
(6) Risk prevention measures and response plans.
Article 32The decision-making organizer shall form a risk assessment report and submit it to the district government. The risk assessment report is an important basis for the district government in making major administrative decisions.
If the assessment indicates the risks of a major administrative decision are controllable, the district government will make the decision and take effective measures to prevent and defuse risks; if such risks are found to be uncontrollable, after taking measures such as adjusting the decision draft to ensure that the risk is controllable, the district government can make the decision; if such risks are found to be uncontrollable, and remains so after taking corresponding measures, the district government shall terminate or suspend the decision.
Chapter 3 Legality Review and Collective Discussion and Decision-making
Section 1 Legality Review
Article 33Before the decision-making organizer conducts collective discussion on the draft of any major administrative decisions, its legal organ, public lawyer or legal adviser shall review the legality of the decision draft; those having not been thus reviewed or failing the review shall not be submitted for collective discussion.
Major administrative decision-making matters that have been collectively discussed and approved by the decision-making organizer shall be submitted to the district bureau of justice for legality review. It is not allowed to replace legality review procedures with opinion solicitation, countersigning, etc. No organization or individual may request the district bureau of justice to give tendentious opinions on such review. If production and operation activities of market entities are involved, the decision draft shall also be submitted to the district administration for market regulation for fair competition review.
Major administrative decision drafts that have not undergone or failed the legality review shall not be submitted to the district government for deliberation. Where production and operation activities of market entities are involved, decision drafts that have not undergone or failed the fair competition review shall not be submitted to the district government for deliberation.
Article 34The decision-making organizer shall submit the following materials to the district bureau of justice for legality review, and be responsible for the authenticity and integrity of such materials:
(1) Application for legality review.
(2) Draft of the decision-making matter and explanatory notes.
(3) Description of the legality of the responsibility and authority involved in the decision-making matter, decision-making basis and content of decision-making.
(4) Description of legal procedures for implementation of decision-making.
(5) Written legality review opinions of the legal organ, public lawyer or legal adviser of the decision-making organizer.
(6) Legal basis including applicable laws, regulations, rules and policy documents.
(7) Other relevant documents.
If the documents provided by the decision-making organizer fail to meet the requirements, the district bureau of justice shall reject them or request additional supporting materials.
Article 35In the process of research, drafting, expert evaluation, risk assessment and solicitation of opinions, if the decision-making organizer submits the draft to the district bureau of justice for legality review, such submission shall be rejected.
Article 36In the process of legality review, the district bureau of justice shall organize legal advisers and public lawyers to give legal opinions. When necessary, the decision-making organizer may be required to make explanations, organize consultation and evaluation, or supplement and improve relevant procedures.
If a legal adviser or public lawyer has a direct interest in the decision-making matter, he/she shall take the initiative to apply for withdrawal from the review.
Article 37The legality review shall include the following items:
(1) Whether the major administrative decision-making matter conforms to legal authority.
(2) Whether the formation of the major administrative decision draft conforms to relevant legal procedures.
(3) Whether the contents of the major administrative decision drafts conform to the provisions of relevant laws, regulations, rules and policy documents.
Article 38The decision-making organizer shall leave enough time, generally no less than 7 working days, for the district bureau of justice to conduct a legality review. The time for supplementing documents, soliciting opinions, consultation and evaluation shall not be included in the timeframe for such review.
Article 39The district bureau of justice shall put forward review opinions on the legality of the decision draft in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) Where conformity to the legal authority, and legality in procedures and contents are secured, the decision draft shall be approved to be submitted to the district government for deliberation.
(2) If some contents are inconsistent with laws, legal regulations, rules and policy documents, the decision-making organizer shall make adjustments according to law before submitting the draft to the district government for deliberation.
(3) If the public participation, expert evaluation, risk assessment, internal legality review, internal collective discussion and other procedures are not performed as required, the case shall be returned to the decision-making organizer for the supplementary performance of relevant procedures before being submitted for legality review.
(4) In the case of going beyond statutory authority or serious violation of laws, regulations, rules and policies, it is suggested that submission shall not be made to the district government for deliberation.
Article 40The district bureau of justice and the decision-making organizer’s legal organ, public lawyer or legal adviser shall put forward the legality review opinions in a timely manner, and shall be responsible for such opinions; for decision-making matters concerning exploratory reform, where no clear stipulations have been issued by the state, province and city, legal risks can be clearly stated and submitted for collective discussion.
The decision-making organizer shall make necessary adjustments or supplements to the decision draft according to the legality review opinions, and report the adoption status of such opinions to the district government in writing; where the review opinions are not adopted or not fully adopted, the reasons shall be fully explained.
Section 2 Collective Discussion and Decision-making and Announcement of Decisions
Article 41 When submitting the decision draft to the district government for deliberation, the decision-making organizer shall submit the following documents:
(1) Request to the district government for deliberation.
(2) Decision draft and explanatory notes.
(3) Legal basis including applicable laws, regulations, rules and policy documents.
(4) Relevant documents for performing public participation, expert evaluation and risk assessment procedures.
(5) If the decision draft involves production and operation activities of market entities, documents on fair competition review shall also be submitted.
(6) Documents on the collective discussion of the decision draft at the work meeting of the decision-making organizer.
(7) Written legality review opinions and adoption status report issued by the district bureau of justice and the legal organ of the decision-making organizer.
(8) Other documents related to the major administrative decision-making matter.
Article 42After receiving the decision draft submitted by the decision-making organizer, if the district government office considers that the documents are complete and can be submitted to the district government for research and discussion, it shall submit the said draft to the deputy district head in charge of such matter and the district head for review and approval, and afterwards to the executive meeting or plenary meeting of the district government for deliberation. No decision shall be made without collective discussion. If it is necessary for the district government to make an immediate decision because of an emergency, the district head may make an emergency decision in accordance with his/her functions and powers, and shall report it to the district government’s executive meeting or plenary meeting in a timely manner.
If the district government office considers that the documents submitted by the decision-making organizer are incomplete, it can reject the application and request the organizer to complete the documents before resubmission; if the office considered that the case should not be submitted to the district government for research and discussion, the case may be returned to the decision-making organizer with the consent of the deputy district head in charge and the district head.
Article 43After the major administrative decisions have been reviewed and passed, except for the circumstances that are not open to the public according to law, the district government shall publish major administrative decisions in a timely manner through the district government portal, government bulletin, local newspapers, government new media platforms and other news media.
The decision-making organizer shall organize policy interpretation synchronously, make full use of various media, and interpret the policy from multiple angles and in an all-round way around the background of policy formulation, main measures and other aspects, and release authoritative interpretation promptly. For major administrative decisions that are of general concern to the public or highly professional and technical, it is necessary to give play to the role of experts and scholars to improve accuracy and authority of interpretation. Timely responses shall be made to the misunderstanding and concerns of the public arising during the implementation of the decision in to clarify doubts.
Chapter 4 Decision Implementation and Adjustment
Article 44The district government shall specify the decision implementer according to its statutory responsibilities. The decision implementer shall implement major administrative decisions in an all-around, timely and proper manner, ensure the quality and progress of implementation, track the implementation effect, and report the decision implementation status to the district government.
Article 45The district government shall supervise and check the decision implementation.
When the competent authority supervises the implementation of major administrative decisions, if it finds problems in the decisions, it shall make feedback to the district government in time and put forward suggestions for improvement.
Where citizens, legal persons or other organizations consider that there are problems in the implementation of major administrative decisions, comments and suggestions can be submitted to the district government or the decision implementer by letter, telephone, e-mail, etc.
Article 46For any problems of the major administrative decisions, significant changes of the objective conditions on which major administrative decisions are based, implementation of major administrative decisions being seriously affected by force majeure and other factors, or a considerable number of complaints made by citizens, legal persons or other organizations, the decision implementer shall report that to the district government in a timely manner.
Article 47Under any of the following circumstances, the decision implementer may organize a post-decision-making assessment and determine an organization to undertake the specific evaluation work:
(1) The laws, regulations, rules, policy documents or other objective conditions on which the decision is based have been substantially changed.
(2) Major administrative decisions fail to achieve the expected effect after implementation.
(3) Citizens, legal persons or other organizations put forward a considerable number of complaints.
(4) The district government or the decision implementer deems it necessary.
The evaluation organization may carry out or entrust experts or professional institutions to carry out a post-decision-making assessment; however, it shall not engage experts, professional institutions and social organizations that have participated in the main demonstration and evaluation work before the decision is made.
For major administrative decisions with a long implementation period, the evaluation organization or the entrusted evaluation institution may conduct phrased post-decision-making assessment.
Article 48Post-decision-making assessment shall mainly include the following:
(1) Basic information of decision implementation.
(2) Cost and economic and social benefit analysis of decision implementation.
(3) Acceptance of decision implementation among specific objects.
(4) The short-term effect and long-term influence brought by the decision implementation.
(5) Problems in decision implementation and their main causes.
Article 49The post-decision-making assessment of major administrative matters shall be conducted according to the following procedures:
(1) Establishment of an evaluation team. The evaluation team shall be composed of relevant personnel from the evaluation organization or the entrusted evaluation institution, with the participation of deputies of people’s congress, CPPCC members, experts, scholars, non-governmental organizations, grass-roots organizations, social organizations, etc.
(2) Formulation of an evaluation plan. The evaluation plan shall mainly include the evaluation purpose, evaluation object and content, evaluation standard and method, evaluation procedures and schedule, fund budget, organization guarantee, etc.
(3) Investigation and research. The evaluation team shall investigate the implementation of major administrative decisions, collect information related to the decisions, as well as opinions and suggestions from administrative organs related to the implementation of major administrative decisions, as well as other relevant organizations, stakeholders and the public.
(4) Preparation of an evaluation report. Comprehensive analysis and research shall be carried out on the collected data to form an evaluation report.
Article 50The decision implementer shall prepare a post-decision-making assessment report and submit it to the district government for discussion. The post-decision-making assessment report shall include the following:
(1) Basic information of the evaluation.
(2) Evaluation content.
(3) Problems existing in the implementation process of the decision and improvement measures.
(4) Suggestions on continuation, adjustment or termination of the decision.
(5) Other problems that need to be explained.
Article 51Major administrative decisions made according to law shall not be changed or brought to suspension of implementation without going through legal procedures. If the circumstances prescribed in Article 46 occur in the course of implementation while the circumstances are urgent, the district head may first decide to suspend the implementation, where, however, records shall be made, and the reasons shall be explained at the executive meeting or plenary meeting of the district government afterwards. If it is necessary to make major adjustments, the relevant legal procedures shall be followed.
Where the implementation of a major administrative decision is terminated or suspended or a major adjustment is made, the district government and the decision implementer shall take effective measures to avoid or reduce possible losses and adverse effects.
Article 52The decision-making organizer, decision implementer, district bureau of justice and other relevant organizations shall, in a timely manner, sort out and keep the their own documents related to the decision-making process. The district government office shall file the records and documents of the major administrative decision-making process in a timely and complete manner.
Records and documents archiving of major administrative decision-making processes involving state secrets shall be handled in accordance with laws and regulations on keeping state secrets.
Chapter 5 Decision-making Supervision
Article 53Major administrative decisions shall be subject to the supervision of the district people’s congress and its standing committee in accordance with the law; those that fall within the scope of major matters required to be discussed and decided by the district people’s congress and its standing committee, or should be reported to the said standing committee before being issued, shall be handled in accordance with relevant provisions.
The district audit bureau shall supervise major administrative decisions in accordance with regulations.
Article 54Major administrative decision-making matter shall be included in the supervision and inspection scope of the district government. The supervision and inspection organization of the district government shall supervise and inspect the drafting and implementation of major administrative decisions and make report to the district government in a timely manner.
Article 55The supervision organization of the district government shall, in a timely manner, provide the supervision conclusions to the supervised organizations, or give notification in an appropriate way.
For what is required to be rectified in the supervision conclusion, the supervised organization shall make rectification as required. The supervision organization of the district government can check the rectification as the work requires.
Article 56Major administrative decisions shall constitute an important part when it comes to evaluation of the decision-making organizers, decision implementing organizations and their leaders; they shall be included in the system of building a government by law and serve as the content in the evaluation of such building.
Chapter 6 Decision-making Liabilities
Article 57If any decision-making organizer violates the provisions herein, in any of the following circumstances, the district government shall order it to make corrections, and the responsible leaders and directly responsible persons shall be investigated for responsibility according to law:
(1) Failing to perform major administrative decision-making procedures in accordance with the provisions herein.
(2) Negligence of duty, dereliction of duty and practicing fraud when performing major administrative decision-making procedures.
Article 58If any decision implementer violates the provisions herein, in any of the following circumstances, the district government shall order it to make corrections, and the responsible leaders and directly responsible persons shall be investigated for responsibility according to law:
(1) Refusing to implement, or shirking or delaying the implementation of, the district government’s major administrative decisions and its decisions to adjust such decisions.
(2) Concealing, misrepresenting or failing to report major issues found during implementation.
Article 59If an entrusted expert, professional institution or social organization violates professional ethics or the provisions herein, the decision-making organizer or the decision implementer shall investigate the legal liability according to law.
Article 60If any relevant personnel violates the confidentiality provisions in the process of major administrative decisions, they shall be investigated for responsibility according to law.
Chapter 7 Supplementary Provisions
Article 61These provisions shall take effect from the date of issue and remain valid for five years. Working Guidelines of Panyu District on Standardizing the Major Administrative Decision-making Procedures(Pan Fu Ban [2020] No. 24) shall be repealed at the same time.
点击查看政策中文原文：广州市番禺区人民政府关于印发番禺区重大行政决策程序规定的通知
点击查看政策解读：《番禺区重大行政决策程序规定》解读