Lubartów, May 2018
3 x S.
Complaints against the Mayor in three versions
Such a structure of our law that the Mayor is the executive body and at the same time the manager of the City Hall, hence it happens that the object is both.
The submitted complaints are of course specific to us by their scope, but not exclusively.
So why do we complain, why? Why - is obvious because something is not working or is malfunctioning. Hence why - it is clear - to make it work better. Or not at all. And not only in relation to us. Is it so good that there is nothing to write about, or is it so bad that the authorities are afraid to inform about it? Or maybe it is just anyhow and it is enough?
Scene I
People working in the Town Hall are paid for performing various duties. What these various duties are - they are performed in detail, the resident should not know. On the one hand, we should not be surprised by the reluctance to disclose what each official does.
It would be possible - horror of horrors - to name a failure to fulfill obligations. Just like in our case: no updating of information on non-governmental organizations or inviting them to consultations.
It can be said that the cult of clerical secrecy is flourishing. The difference in this respect between the Lubartów Staroste and the Lubartów Mayor is that the former first decided that he would not make all the scope of activities available to us immediately, and then handed over only those performing public functions, while the latter - by making the same ones available - even refused to issue an administrative decision in this case. We have already lodged a complaint about this, but we wondered if it was a significant enough issue to fight for it in court.
We did not continue the matter then. But as we know today - wrongly.
As you can see, in the Town Hall someone works and does something, but it's good to know who and what exactly.
Let no one tell you that you owe yourself, citizen, that you did not do well to yourself. Instead of an official. Whose job is "clerical".
What do you complain about, the resident - how do you know that the right man served you?
The Lubartów City Hall refused to issue the scopes of activities, except for persons holding managerial positions, claiming unreasonably that the scopes of activities of other employees are internal organizational documents constituting an integral part of the employee's employment contract and do not constitute public information.
We learned that the Administrative Court dismissed our complaint against the Mayor and the Office. What we do? The usual. We have applied for a justification for a known purpose - we will appeal.
Our point of view? The scope of activities is related to the employment contract, as much as - specifically with a specific position. Or more precisely - with its NAME.
It is not Mania who is to accept incoming documents, but the person employed in the position - customer service. The fact that Ms Mania is doing this is solely due to the fact that she was employed in the above-mentioned position. And it is not about any particular Mr. Manie in this case. With all due respect to them.
If you are interested in details, please refer to the article " What do officials do? Mystery! ".
Scene II
Recently (unfortunately) we have proved that some employees of the Town Hall do not fulfill their duties properly.
And again, as it happens in our business, the scope of the complaint concerns us, but not exclusively.
On the city's website, in the "Office" section, there is a "NGO" tab.
We corresponded with the Office why this list is not updated . We know that it is not, or at least it was not, because we operated there as the "Association - suspended". And we haven't been using this configuration for quite a long time.
It may be quite awkward, but in the end, the Mayor is the best witness to our "non-suspension of operations".
The mayor, when rejecting our complaint, indicated that the Office is not obliged to keep such a register. Obvious, but since he does, shouldn't he exercise due diligence?
Where does the City Hall get the knowledge about ngo functioning (or not) in the city?
There has been a long discussion about the Lewart sports pavilion, so we decided that it would be a good measure. In the register of ordinary associations, kept by the Lubartowski Staroste, the "Municipal Sports Club" Lewart "Autonomiczna Group of Sections" item will not be revealed, so we checked - it is in the National Court Register. The city website lists the addresses of two websites. On both, information on the legal form, authorities, etc. is missing. There is no page listed in the National Court Register.
53 organizations are listed on the municipal website, while additional "personal" invitations to consultations were sent to 47 organizations.
It is the Office for Cooperation and Social Communication that is responsible for "contacts with organizations, promoting the activities of NGOs, volunteers, civic activity and social dialogue in the City, updating the content of websites run by the City in cooperation with the IT Office" and various other stuff.
So people work there who get wages for performing various duties.
Therefore, we wrote a complaint about the improper performance of duties. The mayor rejected it because, in his opinion, it is our duty to verify the truthfulness of the content published on the city's website. Maybe, in the opinion of the Office, residents should perform the duties of officials, but then what is the point of employing them? The more so because the officials showed efficiency in responding to the denunciation and calling us to explain. Then the Office knew that we are here and we are acting. It looks a bit as if a resident, when submitting an application in one window, still had to go to the other one and check if that lady had all the stamps.
In any case, due to the fact that the Office for Cooperation is not responsible for cooperation or lack of cooperation - we wrote a complaint against the superior, i.e. the Mayor.
Chairman of the Audit Committee, Mr. Piotr Kusyk decided that there is no need to summon us to the Committee in order to listen to our position before issuing an opinion. It does not surprise us, because it is not the first time. If you complain about the Mayor, he won't invite you either.
And we know it because ...
Scene III
At the last session of the City Council, resolutions were to be adopted regarding two complaints against the Mayor of the City. The first concerned the recognition as unfounded (yes, right away in the draft - what to wait for) our complaint, mentioned in Scene II. The second - recognition as groundless complaints of residents (no surprises) against the mayor of the city "for negligence, improper performance of tasks by the authority, violation of the rule of law and the interests of the complainants, as well as lengthy and bureaucratic handling of the case". Probably in this case, Chairman Piotr Kusyk also saw no need to listen to what people had to say. What is going on? We are planning to expand the provincial road towards Parczewo. The inhabitants of the plots, some of which would be occupied for the purposes of this investment, submitted their comments at the meeting at the City Hall. The official wrote down the note, but the City Hall did nothing with these remarks. For those who build their own houses, it is not necessary to explain that the plans should take into account what the area looks like in reality. And that - at least theoretically - it should be consistent with the local spatial development plan. Meanwhile, these people made a drainage of plots to which rainwater from the planned road lane was to be discharged. Colloquially speaking - the road contractor will plow some plots of land for people living there, will drain drainage ditches made for their own money. The problem is that the existing ditch to be used has no continuity, i.e. the water will flood the plots of land and buildings without any obstacles. This is what the Commune Office wrote to the designer. Meanwhile, the Mayor of the City decided that this matter did not concern him and only conveyed the reported comments to the design company. It stated that the city was not a party to these proceedings. Yes, it is not a party, but it should provide an opinion on the project. As the residents write in the complaint: “We intervened with the City Hall many times, we met with Mayor of the City, as well as Vice Mayor or Head of the Infrastructure Department.
One (!) Note was made of the above-mentioned meetings. At the same time, the actual settlement of the matter was left - without settling the matter. We were forced to try to take our comments into account ourselves. None of the experts agreeing the project noticed the absurdities of the adopted design solution. What did we expect from the Mayor of the City, as our representative on the one hand and the manager of the City Hall - on the other? Speaking on our behalf - not only because the project obviously grossly violates our interests as plot owners, but is inconsistent with common sense and the actual topography.
Should the Office not "ex officio" come forward in this case if there are discrepancies between the plan on which the project is based and the actual state of affairs? "
Whether the complaint will be considered groundless at the next Session is rather a rhetorical question, taking into account the distribution of votes in the City Council. Would you like the Office in the person of the Mayor to stand on your side in such matters, or on the side of ... well - whose?