Политика

The municipal councilor Atanas Vodev is a member of the committee elected by the local parliament on acceptance and transfer of the attributes of the mayoral power. For this committee, August 18 was a difficult day as practically the municipality was left without a mayor: Mr. Stoyan Dulev was absent from Velingrad, and Mr. Ivan Lebanov, despite the oath taken a day earlier, did not take office a temporary mayor of the municipality. Much has been written and said about the commission's activities over the past week, and many reproaches have fallen on its members, including attempts at self-governance and for the forced intervention of police officers. We invited Mr. Vodev to shed more light on the most commented topics:
- Mr. Vodev, how on August 18 came to the presence of two decisions of the Municipal Council under number 235 (the decision to terminate the powers of the temporary mayor Stoyan Dulev)?
- The decision was formulated during the session of the Municipal Council in connection with a proposal on the agenda, which was voted and adopted accordingly. As is evident from the minutes and the record of the meeting, the main ground on which the termination of Mr. Dulev's credentials is sought is Art. 42, para. 2 of the LMSMA, which does not require a qualified majority.
At 10.30 a.m. on August 18, the committee on reception and transmission of attributes of power received the decision of the session from the secretary of the Municipal Council. Immediately it was noticed that in decision 235 another ground was indicated (under art. 42, para. 1, which requires a qualified majority and therefore such a decision would be easily vulnerable to the Regional Administration - ed.). We appealed to the Chairman of the Municipal Council with a request to correct the decision so that it would correspond to the reality proven by the record and the minutes of the meeting.
We learned with astonishment that the moment the decision was presented to us with an inaccurate reason, it had already been entered into the Regional Administration! How this happened, given that the decisions of the session were written them at the moment is a question to which the chairman of the Municipal Council must give an answer.
The main motives according to art. 21 are supported by the motives in the decision itself, and they were omitted. We held the subject of two extraordinary sessions of the session - the violations of Art. 76 of the Rules, the contract concluded by Mr. Dulev with "Beev and Beev" in violation of a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, the order signed by him for preliminary execution of this contract and the proven violation on the basis of an order received by the Pazardzhik District Court, to be entered as motives. The corrected decision is credible - this is how it is described in the minutes of the meeting and corresponds to the session recording.
How and why the district government in the person of Mr. Hamza issued before the extraordinary session an opinion on an unofficial draft decision without giving reasons remains a mystery. And it brings us to the thought of a prescriptive scenario.
- Since you said "preliminary scenario", are there violations of the law and regulations when convening the extraordinary session and if so, who is responsible?
- The chairman of the Municipal Council scheduled the session on the basis of a decision of the Operative Bureau. What 3 days are sought under the Rules? When the session was called and the date was set, the facts were that there was a contract with Beev and Beev for the cleaning, which automatically suspends the municipality's contract with Stroycom. One of the motives was a notification by the manager of Stroycom to the chairman of the Municipal Council about the situation. In my opinion, the session is absolutely legally scheduled and held, and the decisions are legitimate.
- Why, while on August 18 your commission was working, were police officers called to the municipality and charges of attempted self-government followed?
- On August 18, the committee of municipal councilors met in the small hall of the municipality, which is evident from the protocols signed by the councilors (only Dimitar Gadzhev from the group of the promoted Fidel Beev Green Party did not sign protocols 2 and 3). Clarifying information was requested regarding the retention of attributes of power by officials Yanka Petrova - Secretary of the OA, Hristo Savov - Chief Accountant and Denka Hristova - Host. All three declared to the committee that they had no access to the mayor's room and did not know in what condition the seals, secret mail, secret documentation, etc. were stored. We asked for the stamps to be described; the last numbers of the destructions of the chief architect; the warrant book from the registry with respect to the incoming and outgoing documentation - only the last numbers; as well as information on claims and obligations on the basis of a standard summary monthly report. While Mr Savov provided the information, Ms Petrova refused in a written declaration to assist the commission.
While we were in the hall, 10 Interior Ministry employees showed up. There was no opening or attempt to break down doors - a fact that Interior Ministry officials declared to the commission. Protocol that there are no illegal actions, there is in the police station of the Ministry of Interior - Velingrad.
- How will the committee summarize its activities?
- After receiving the order of the district governor to suspend the decisions and submit to the District Court, the commission suspended its work. We presented a summary protocol of our activities in the office of the Chairman of the Municipal Council.