Improve the effectiveness of name clarification and improve the gains and losses of three key links | Clarification | Name Correction

The disciplinary inspection and supervision department's clarification and rectification of false reports and accusations is one of the important measures to further motivate cadres to take on responsibilities and fully mobilize their enthusiasm, initiative, and creativity in work and entrepreneurship. In recent years, disciplinary inspection and supervision departments at all levels across the country have actively carried out practical explorations on the clarification of false accusations and accusations, and issued implementation rules for related work, which has played a positive role in motivating cadres to take on responsibilities.

Adhering to prudence and prudence is one of the important principles for carrying out the work of clarifying and rectifying names. Due to the complexity, wide scope, and significant social impact of many false accusations, in order to ensure that the expected results of name clarification and correction can be achieved, on the basis of strictly implementing the existing system of name clarification and correction, efforts should be made to improve and perfect the three key links before, during, and after the incident, effectively implementing the principle of "prudence and prudence", and providing solid guarantees for comprehensively improving the effectiveness of name clarification and correction.

Firstly, focus on improving and perfecting the pre case review process

The false identification of issues reflected in reports and accusations is an important foundation for prudently and prudently carrying out clarification and rectification work. Adhering to the principles of seeking truth from facts, following regulations and laws is one of the basic principles that need to be followed when conducting inspections on reports and accusations. The determination of false reports and accusations requires clear facts, conclusive evidence, accurate determination, and a basis in accordance with regulations, discipline, and law.

In practice, disciplinary inspection and supervision departments at all levels have strict and standardized work procedures for investigating and handling the problems and clues reflected in reports and accusations. During the verification phase, there is no need to add special requirements for verification work due to possible clarifications and corrections.

However, for problem clues that have been identified as untrue through verification and are intended to be clarified, it is necessary to review the case to be clarified before or during the clarification approval process. Generally speaking, conducting clarification and name correction will attract further attention to the parties involved and related matters, especially when using public clarification methods. If the verification is not meticulous and precise enough, and there are deviations or defects in the clarified content, it may attract further questioning, greatly reduce the effectiveness of the clarification, and even affect the credibility of the disciplinary inspection and supervision department.

The establishment and improvement of the case review process is in line with the principle of prudence and prudence, which helps to avoid or reduce factual biases or defects caused by various factors, and is conducive to improving the effectiveness of the work of clarifying false accusations and accusations.

The design of the case review process is essentially a supervision and inspection of the investigation of false accusations and accusations. It can be carried out by the handling department through internal cross review, or by other departments based on the principle of separating review and trial.

Secondly, we will focus on improving and perfecting the process of comparing and selecting solutions in the process

Choosing different clarification methods and clarifying within different scopes for different issues and objects may often achieve different clarification effects. The selection of clarification methods and scope does not have a fixed routine to follow, and requires "one matter, one discussion", avoiding a "one size fits all" approach.

Some matters are suitable for detailed internal disclosure, while others are suitable for public dissemination. Some matters require maintaining collective reputation and timely eliminating social impact, while others require considering the feelings of the parties involved and controlling the scope of knowledge as much as possible. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a sound mechanism for comparing and selecting clarification plans.

In the process of clarifying and comparing proposals, the handling department should not only analyze the content of the false petition report itself, but also analyze the political ecology of the unit, and compare the relevant situations of similar historical events.

In the process of comparing and selecting clarification plans, the handling department needs to listen to the opinions of the party organization of the unit where the clarification object is located, as well as the opinions of the higher-level organizational department, and also needs to solicit the opinions of the clarification object.

Thirdly, focus on improving and perfecting the post evaluation process for effectiveness

After the implementation of the work of clarifying false accusations and accusations, the handling department can timely evaluate the effectiveness of clarifying the name through follow-up visits, public opinion tracking, and other methods.

Conducting effectiveness evaluation work can, on the one hand, provide a deep understanding of the ideological and cognitive changes, work performance, and other situations of the clarified objects. It can not only reflect the concern of the disciplinary inspection and supervision department for party members and cadres, but also play a role in consolidating the effectiveness of the clarification work; On the other hand, it can comprehensively summarize and clarify the gains and losses of name correction work, accumulate experience for future work, and help improve the relevant system of name correction.

The post evaluation work is essentially a feedback mechanism and an important part of prudently and prudently carrying out clarification work. The establishment of this feedback mechanism has formed a complete closed loop for the entire work of false reporting, accusation and clarification, forming a virtuous cycle, which is conducive to motivating party members and cadres to take on responsibilities, work hard and start businesses, and promoting the high-quality development of disciplinary inspection and supervision work.