City appearance management can be outsourced, but supervisory responsibility cannot be abandoned.
Compiled from: Red Star News, The Beijing News
Case review
On December 6, a video titled "Rumor: Nantong city management personnel seize sugarcane from elderly vendor on the street" circulated online. The footage shows several people in uniforms marked "Jingtong City Management" surrounding a man pushing a bicycle, taking sugarcane from his basket, while the man cries out.
That evening, the local town government responded, stating that the on-site handling was crude and inconsistent with agreed work requirements, and initiated an investigation and accountability process per regulations.
In the early hours of December 7, a staff member from Sanxing Town Government in Nantong, Jiangsu, responded that the incident occurred on the afternoon of December 6, triggered by a vendor discarding sugarcane peels, affecting city appearance. City management personnel guided him to a designated selling spot. The "black-clad" individuals in the video were not government employees but from Jingtong City Management Service Co., Ltd., "a third-party company contracted by the government for city management duties." Local authorities have suspended the involved personnel and launched an investigation.
Administrative Compulsory Enforcement Law
Article 16
Administrative agencies, in performing their administrative duties, implement compulsory measures in accordance with laws and regulations.
If the illegal act is extremely minor or has no obvious social harm, administrative coercive measures may not be taken.
Article 17
Administrative coercive measures shall be implemented by administrative organs prescribed by laws and regulations within their statutory authority. The power to take administrative coercive measures shall not be delegated. Administrative organs that exercise centralized administrative penalty powers in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Penalty Law of the People's Republic of China may implement administrative coercive measures related to administrative penalty powers as prescribed by laws and regulations. Administrative coercive measures shall be implemented by qualified administrative law enforcement personnel of administrative organs, and no other personnel may implement them.
Administrative Penalty Law
Article 20
An administrative organ may, in accordance with the provisions of laws, regulations, and rules, entrust in writing an organization that meets the conditions specified in Article 21 of this Law to implement administrative penalties within its statutory authority. An administrative organ shall not entrust any other organization or individual to implement administrative penalties.
The letter of entrustment shall specify the specific matters, scope of authority, duration, and other contents. The entrusting administrative organ and the entrusted organization shall make the letter of entrustment public to society.
The entrusting administrative organ shall supervise the implementation of administrative penalties by the entrusted organization and bear legal liability for the consequences of such actions.
The entrusted organization shall, within the scope of the entrustment, impose administrative penalties in the name of the entrusting administrative organ; it shall not further entrust any other organization or individual to impose administrative penalties.
Article 21
The entrusted organization must meet the following conditions:
(1) It is established in accordance with the law and has the function of managing public affairs;
(2) It has staff members who are familiar with relevant laws, regulations, rules, and business and have obtained qualifications for administrative law enforcement;
(3) If technical inspection or technical appraisal is required, it shall be capable of organizing the corresponding technical inspection or technical appraisal.
[1] The author's perspective
First, the so-called "law enforcement personnel" in this case are not government employees but staff from an outsourcing company. According to Article 17 of the Administrative Compulsory Law, administrative compulsory measures can only be implemented by administrative organs as prescribed by laws and regulations within their statutory authority and cannot be delegated to others. This is a restriction on power, preventing its unlimited expansion. In the past, there have been many incidents of disorderly urban management enforcement. Through these events, the public has learned that auxiliary personnel do not have independent enforcement authority. Yet, in this case, the outsourcing company staff could brazenly take away the elderly man's sugarcane under the guise of tidying up the city appearance. Where does this power come from?
Second, management personnel and street vendors should not be in complete opposition. Although the elderly man's stall disrupted the city's appearance, the management personnel could have actively communicated with him or guided him to a suitable area to sell. In any case, such a brutal approach should not be used to solve the problem, especially when the government's image is at stake behind such actions.
Third, this incident also reveals that local competent authorities and grassroots governments have failed to perform their duties and supervise in a timely manner. Even if outsourcing is permitted by laws and regulations, government departments should fulfill their supervisory responsibilities. They must not only strictly review outsourcing companies in accordance with laws and regulations during the initial selection but also remain vigilant during the subsequent implementation phase, preventing the unchecked delegation of power. City appearance management can be outsourced, but management responsibility must never be abandoned.
