Политика

In November it was one year since the launch of the new Municipal Council of Velingrad. The 29 councillors had the test and the chance to work in an extremely dynamic and dramatic situation. If the activity of the Municipal Council is measured by the number of decisions taken, then the present one has worked seriously: 843 decisions have been voted in 12 months, which means an "average monthly rate" of 32 decisions. To take stock of the year's work, we invited the President and the two newly elected Vice-Presidents of the General Assembly and the Chairs of the Standing Committees. Here's how they answered the question of v. "Tempo" what succeeded and what failed to do in 1 year Municipal Council:

Nejat Kehayov, Chairman of the Municipal Council: The most that the Municipal Council (MC) has achieved in 1 year is that it has managed to build itself as a thinking and responsible body. At all committee meetings and at the session, the councillors are involved quite prepared on the topics and are accordingly approached responsibly in defense of the interests of the municipality. For example, when voting on the budget, councillors showed extraordinary activity, challenged, discussed, very seriously pressed the Municipal Administration (OA) to work more qualitatively. There are too many reproaches on the work of the Finance Directorate by the advisers. Currently, councillors are worried about the financial situation, the collection of local revenues, the spending of funds for capital expenditures, from the funds of Roads and Disasters. Regarding the management of municipal property, the OS was able to make the important decision to improve the aesthetic appearance of the central city area - the principle position for the phased removal of the pavilions. The GA is now interested not only in the accounts and balance sheets of commercial companies with our participation, but also in their activities and management. The strongest firmness and maturity the councillors showed for the municipal firm Stroycom, the hottest disputes being fought right around it. On the side remained VKTV, where there are also problems and we are going to look at the report of the financial controller. It is good that the advisers revised the contract with Eurovod Commerce and have a principled position on it: they will continue the fight if not for its termination, which is very difficult, at least to limit the draining of funds to EVKK. The privatization program is also successful, funds have been received to invest in schools, kindergartens, town halls. Another plus is the good organizational work in the committees that are already sitting on an established schedule and we will soon announce it on the information board for 6 months ahead. We have achieved better contact and communication with the citizens. We failed to adopt a plan and strategy for the development of the Municipality of Velingrad for a period of 5-10 years. This strategy had to be covered with the mayor's election platform to motivate the OA and OS to implement it. Yes, unfortunately, and to this day we have not adopted a plan, and that is the most important thing! We also failed to achieve good synchronization with the OA, with the individual directorates. Currently, there is a confrontation and reluctance on the part of the OA to joint and correct discussion of the problems in the management of the municipality.
Mikhail Alexiev, Deputy Chairman of the General Assembly: During the past 1 year the General Assembly has been working much more organized and disciplined, now the committees are looking in more detail and in detail at the important issues put up for discussion. The decisions returned by the district governor are significantly less than those of the previous OS. The responsibility has increased and the sanctions against the municipal councilor have increased. The General Assembly perfected the structure of its bodies, finally a committee on post-privatization control began to work, two vice-presidents were elected for more comprehensive preparation and holding of the committees and sessions, measures were adopted such as solving the problems of infrastructure in Roma neighborhoods, etc. OS failed to load the elected mayor and V.I.D. mayor to comply with their legal obligations to implement the decisions of the session and especially those that relate to the development of the municipality. It is the mayor's responsibility as an executive body for the local legislative initiative to put for wide discussion a Development Plan for the municipality of Velingrad until 2007, after which to implement it. It's mandatory, but it never did. Thus, the municipality has no perspective because the public interest is not respected. We have not received funding under any large-scale project and it is not at all the fault of the Municipal Council. The big problem facing the municipality is its future and the main disadvantage of the past year is that the way of Velingrad from here on out has not been outlined.
Asim Adem, Deputy Chairman of the General Assembly: In one year a lot happened in this mini parliament of ours - both good and bad. Of the good ones, I will first of all point out that although late, a new majority was created, which put aside the party bias and conscientiously worked for the interests of the municipality. No matter how many deny it, it is a fact! We work for the municipality. I will also say what I put first as bad: this is the fact that even after a year there continues to be a lack of consensus, there continues to be no co-operation between the OS and the OA. Very often our decisions are not implemented, and this interferes with the work and brings discord between the legislative and executive authorities at the local level. From this the voters have no benefit, but I am optimistic and believe that in the remaining 3 years, we will work in sync for the good of the city and the municipality.
Boryana Belukhova, Chairman of the Committee on Economy: For me, participation in the legislative governance of the Municipality of Velingrad was an extremely responsible novelty. As an economist, I expected to work accurately and responsibly, guided by legality and in favor of the development of the municipality. The abnormal situation in which the Municipal Council was placed throughout the year had a negative impact on the Economic Commission as well. The lack of a comprehensive vision and program for the work of OA forced us to solve important problems chaotically and piecemeal. Budget 2004, control over 100% municipal companies and companies with municipal participation, control over implementation of the decisions of the GA by the administration - all these extremely important issues were resolved partially and largely ineffectively. Hopefully for the next three years. to change the methods of work in the Municipal Administration so that the Economic Commission can work effectively and in the interest of all citizens of the municipality.
Georgi Mihaylov, Chairman of the Committee on Municipal Property: OS managed to do a lot of things, but unfortunately failed to exercise control over the implementation of the decisions made and the fault for this is mainly of the OA. We could not do anything in terms of attracting investments - again it was the fault of OA, which did not want to work on the various projects and programs of the European pre-accession funds. We were unable to provide transparency on the income and expenditures collected and spent by the OA.
Nikolay Taushanov, Chairman of the TSU Committee: The routine things that the TSU Committee deals with are going normally. For me it was a first year as a municipal councilor, but I talked to colleagues with experience and they also think that things are going normally in the committee. But many initiatives are stalled for conjuncture reasons. Here at the two last sessions the topic of asphalting of the streets is commented, for which there are 80,000 levs unspent. Because of the general conjuncture in the municipality, many things do not move.
Venko Bozev, Chairman of the Public Order Committee: A lot of things have been accepted, we have tried to work as constructively as possible, regardless of which part of the majority. The Public Order Committee carried out 80% of its plan. The bad thing is that this was not fulfilled by the OA and in this sense we failed to meet the needs of the people of the municipality of Velingrad. In the committee we examined many complaints, mainly from Pashovo, where there is an escalation of tensions. As planned, we had to make meetings in the Ministry of Interior, the court and the prosecution, which was carried out. With regard to traffic safety, the issue of snow removal now especially acutely arises, where some of the money has already been brought to the OA there is no contract with a contractor, and we are on the verge of winter. We also lack clarity about the garbage fee as a social element of the whole policy of the municipality. We have a vision as councillors, we know the experience of municipalities that form the fee already in a new way, but we do not have estimates from the OA for 2005 so as not to create a vacuum in the budget. Hopefully in 2005. make the roundabout of the Market. There are also good prospects with the Italian road company, to which we proposed an idea for a ring road. We failed to respond to people's interests - not that we didn't want to, but without interaction OS - OA that's impossible. The rating of the OS is not satisfactory, a negative attitude is created among the society by a certain circle of people, by a certain media. Opposition is scary. The future is in the OS to establish itself as a body that is elected to carry out the policy of the people of the municipality of Velingrad.
Ismet Babuchi, Chair of the Ecology Committee: A report on the implementation of our decisions and a comprehensive analysis of the work was made at the previous session. Unfinished work from the OS are the many deferred points and returned decisions. Our committee had a proposal for exchange of experience with colleagues from Sandanski or Bansko, which will be very useful. The municipal council needs to go outside, outside the municipality, because there is tension. Many things will iron out if we get together "without ties". The time bomb is the Stroycom saga, where there is no ultimate solution.
Snezhana Veleva, Chair of the Education Committee: Last year, however difficult and hard it was, a lot of good things happened. The most important decision for me as chairman of the committee is that for the first time Velingrad has a Strategy for Child Protection, suggesting a complex approach to solving children's problems. My greatest satisfaction is with the project for the Day Rehabilitation Center - this "gordium knot" that we finally "untied". It is very useful to set up the Temporary Commission to check the readiness of schools to start the new school year. The municipal councilors on the ground got acquainted with the problems of each educational institution and I believe that this just has to become a tradition. Decent decisions were made in the past year: the designation of the H.E. Gen. Atanas Semerdzhiev as an honorary citizen of Velingrad and all decisions related to Nikolay Ghiaurov, as a sign of respect and esteem. I am unhappy as chairman of the committee and as a municipal councilor that we could not solve the problems of sport. We made only the first steps in the creation of a United Sports Club. I wish we could be more expeditious. I will announce to the readers of v. "Tempo" what I hope for during the other three years of term: I very much hope and I would like to believe that the two tourist companies will make an attempt and will shake hands to work as one. I believe in a better future for Velingrad and the municipality.