?
Общественно-консультативные советы по вопросам культурного наследия в российских регионах: информационная открытость и персональный состав
This article continues the discussion about public advisory councils as mediator institutions that ensure the interaction of the authorities and various interest groups. The author focuses on the problem of information openness and personal composition of councils in the field of cultural heritage protection in the regions of the Russian Federation. Particular attention is paid to the representation of civil society organizations in the councils. The search for public advisory councils was carried out in 59 regions of the Russian Federation. As a result, 66 public advisory councils for cultural heritage were identified in 53 regions. 49 councils exist under regional bodies of state protection of cultural heritage; the other 17 councils function under the heads and governments of the regions. The article contains two parts. The first deals with the problem of information openness of councils. Information openness was studied based on the analysis of websites and sections of websites dedicated to public advisory councils. The second part presents the analysis of the personal composition of the councils. For this, information was collected on 637 members of the councils. The study revealed the following. Firstly, a significant part of the identified councils has a rather low information openness. Only about a dozen councils have all or most indicators of information openness. None of the councils has its own website with regularly updated information, and the information is usually posted on the websites of executive authorities. Secondly, in a significant part of the councils, a low representation of civil society organizations involved in the protection of cultural heritage was revealed. Informal public associations were represented only in a few councils. In many councils, there were no specialized NGOs at all. In addition, obstacles to the participation of civil society structures were identified in some councils. Thirdly, apparently, there is no direct connection between the information openness of the councils and the presence of specialized NGOs in the councils. It is likely that information openness in this case is more related to the ability and willingness of the authorities to post information on their websites. In general, it can be said that there is a significant cross-regional variation in terms of information openness and the personal composition of public advisory councils. Despite the presence of a certain number of councils with a relatively high information openness and the presence of NGOs, the bulk of the councils can hardly be called open and accessible to the public. This seriously reduces the opportunities for dialogue and may indicate serious failures in the interaction between the authorities and civil society in the field of cultural heritage protection. The author declares no conflicts of interests.