208. In 1999 in Istanbul, OSCE States decided to “dispatch delegations from the OSCE institutions, with the participation of other relevant international organizations, when appropriate, to provide advice and expertise for reform of legislation and practices”. In fact, the earliest field operations deployed by the CSCE had precisely that temporary fact-finding and reporting character for specific crisis situations. The ODIHR suggests re-examining these early experiences in order to develop temporary, highly focused, and flexible tools for the OSCE to remain a relevant actor in times of crisis. Whether or not such a mechanism is called “rapporteurs”, “short-term advisory missions”, “democratization teams”, or “thematic missions” with a specific fact-finding task and in a sub-regional context116 is a question that should not obscure the general purpose of such an innovation. Ñ Secretary General 209. Within the wider structure of the OSCE, the relationship with the Secretary General, as the chief administrative officer of the organization, and with the Secretariat is a critical element for the ODIHR’s effectiveness in implementing its mandate. While the OSCE Secretariat started out as a purely administrative service to the political bodies and the field operations, with the Conflict Prevention Centre standing as a separate entity, the functions and responsibilities of an enlarged Secretariat were consolidated and the role of the Secretary General strengthened. The ODIHR wholeheartedly supported and welcomed this process, as it, like the other OSCE institutions, can only benefit from more efficient, professional administrative back-up, as well as from targeted efforts to co-ordinate and systematize work Organization-wide. 210. The centralized functions of the Secretariat serve the OSCE’s purpose and increase its overall effectiveness when exercised in due recognition of the degree to which the OSCE is a decentralized entity. The relationship between the Secretariat and the ODIHR is therefore built on the original mandate and role of the ODIHR as a distinct institution. Operational autonomy represents an indispensable requirement for the ODIHR to work effectively, that is, in a flexible, quick, focused, and meaningful manner. Recommending a stronger and more visible role for the Secretary General, the Panel of Eminent Persons underlined that this would not involve subordinating the existing institutions to the Secretariat. The various entities should continue to operate according to their respective mandates.117 211. In recent years, relations between the ODIHR Director, the heads of the other two institutions, and the Secretary General have become tighter and more coherent. Frequent meetings and other contacts ensure high-level co-ordination among the institutions and enable the operational structures of the OSCE to serve and advise the CiO and the Permanent Council in an increasingly effective manner. Close co-operation exists on all substantive and administrative levels. 116  CIO.GAL/172/06, 30 October 2006. 117  The Panel stated that “the different Institutions should retain their ability to make independent evaluations and take programmatic initiatives in accordance with their respective mandates”. (Common Purpose, para. 8(g), note 61 of this report). With regard to external relations with relevant partner organizations, the Panel recommended, for instance, that the Secretary General be “the central point of contact for other international organizations and NGOs for all aspects of operational issues relevant beyond the mandate of individual OSCE structures and Institutions” (id., para. 37(h)). 70 Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation