Civic City of Lubartów

February 6, 2016

Lubart's participatory sauté budget

On February 11 (Thursday), in the Lubartów City Hall (room 10) from 8:00 to 20:00, voting for projects submitted under the civic budget will be held.

List of projects:

1.      Construction of a playground on plot no. 83/17 at ul. Łokietek, PLN 200,000

2.      Construction of a video monitoring system, stage I PLN 360,000

3.      L'Art Festival PLN 60,000

4.      Modernization of the playground at ul. Chmielna 62,000 PLN

5.      Lighting of streets: Stefan Batory, Zygmunt II August 100,000 PLN

6.      Promotion of the city of Lubartów by native artists PLN 59,000

7.      Reconstruction of the fountain at ul. Market I PLN 150,000

8.      Reconstruction of ul. Władysław Jagiełło 400,000 zlotys

9.      Lubartów 45,000 PLN

10. development path PLN 53,450

11. Hardening the surface of the side street to ul. W. Śliwina at the level of the former SP1 branch PLN 25,000

12. Establishing a small playground in the Kopernika estate PLN 80,000 purchase and installation of play equipment. When purchasing a plot of land, the cost: PLN 160,000

13. Barbecue shelter on the Wieprz River 65,000 PLN

14. Execution of exits and access to the property at ul. North, PLN 150,000

Vol 1

  We will not once again dwell on the benefits that we believe are associated with the introduction of BO in the city. In short, it is a chance for greater identification of residents with their place of residence, which results in increased responsibility for shared property, or generally a change in thinking about urban property as nobody's. It is also an opportunity to integrate residents not only around projects that relate to their area of residence, but to broaden their interest in urban issues globally.

   We are bound by the model of representative democracy, which does not exclude the separation of an area for direct actions. After all, there are no other legislative initiatives, and in the Preamble to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which "ended" 30 years last year, it was stated that the right of citizens to participate in managing public affairs is one of the democratic principles common to all member states Council of Europe.

   The councilor does not have to follow the voters' instructions in any way, so a delegation of not only 25 but also 150 people is not able to persuade him to submit an application to the city budget. In such a case, there remains a disgusting conclusion that the councilor will be verified every four years.

   Therefore, allocating a part of funds to the BO is an option for direct co-decision on municipal funds. Also by councilors who can be applicants, about which - I admit - I have mixed feelings. However, we also heard that a single councilor can do little if he is not in a coalition, and therefore let "more" be allowed in a different way.

  As we repeat, the essence of this budget is precisely that the residents decide which of the submitted projects are to be implemented regardless of who contributes these projects. So this is an introduction to a broad discussion on the development of the city, because of course the City Council has a certain vision and probably all voters are counting on it (even if you don't see it), but residents can also have their own.

Vol 2

Criticism is and always will be.

    Criticism representative democracy, so people have nothing to do with it. River theme. There has been a lot about it on our website. The city lasts a little longer than the term of the councilor with whom you can agree or disagree. The promotion of such a view means that the councilors themselves, who want to activate residents in the event of harmful - in their opinion - projects, have nobody to activate, because no one will come anywhere, except for the polling station. It is more difficult to govern conscious citizens, but it is better. In a nutshell, from the website of the “Masz Głos” [“Your Choice] Action, http://www.maszglos.pl/strefa-wiedzy/budzet-obywatelski/budzet-obywatelski-krok-i/ , also about references in the local government act.

    Criticism now there is not enough money for other (important) investments. It would be good to see a place where there is enough for everyone. In my opinion, such a place is called Utopia. BO is not only a voting but also a platform to discuss what needs to be done first.

   Criticism now someone will treat us to something we don't want. One way - via John Paul II for voting. Second - submit your project yourself. They can be simultaneous. Participation often starts with one dissatisfied resident. This is a process. How else is human and social capital created?

    Criticism has no legal powers. As stated (fragment) by Mr. Andrzej Porawski, Director of the Office Association of Polish Cities "The Act - at most - should allow city / commune / poviat authorities to allocate a" civic "part of the budget. And that's only because some regulators today have a problem with it. Meanwhile, every thinking person (I assume that in the Regional Audit Chamber or at the voivode, sometimes they think ...) should accept this form of initiative of citizens, because in the end citizens constitute a self-government community, which is clearly indicated in the law.

     Some supervisory authorities treat the participation of citizens in the creation of the budget as a form of… consultations - so be it, although this has nothing to do with treating residents as ENTITIES of a self-governing community. Well, but since the Lower Silesian voivode repealed resolutions of municipal councils granting citizens the right to adopt a legislative initiative (i.e., in fact, to submit draft resolutions to the council's deliberations), it may need to be written down somehow ... After all, remember that in various places the civic budget procedure has already been successfully introduced, which proves that in the current legal situation, despite the resistance of overzealous supervisors, the civic budget began to work. Self-governance is not about empty guarantees

   If we were to decide on a statutory provision, it should therefore concern the participation of citizens in designing the budget, because the budget will ultimately be adopted by the decision-making body at the request of the executive body (this principle is appropriate). This participation can already be regulated today - and not only (as some supervisors want) in the resolution on the principles of conducting consultations, but above all in the resolution on the procedure for working on the budget, and if the executive body would like to include residents earlier, then in an appropriate order the head of the commune head or in a resolution of the poviat board. And it should always be in the form of "may" and not "must". Because self-government does not consist in empty guarantees, but in creating the possibility of free, voluntary participation. " http://wiadomosci.ngo.pl/wiadomosci/842418.html

Vol 3

As for the resolution itself ... As we say - we learn.

We asked for the minutes of the meeting of the Team for reviewing projects submitted under the Civic Budget for 2016, but the doubts remained.

We are aware that sometimes something "comes out in the wash".

There is no reason to be offended, just to pull up your sleeves and correct what is imprecise.

   The provision of tasks carried out within one financial year requires discussion. However, we must not forget that BO is part of the city's budget, which is adopted for a specific year. Perhaps it should only be made clear that implementation is understood as the time needed for the actual execution of the investment, apart from tender procedures and the preparation of relevant documentation. By the way, the introduction of clear criteria for assessing the feasibility of this implementation. (Inquiry to several entrepreneurs carrying out similar projects?) This is a solution for consideration.

   The next issue is the question of land ownership. On this occasion, it is worth considering whether it is necessary for schools, kindergartens and nurseries to be generally excluded from design. Regarding ownership - you can imagine a situation where the city makes some kind of investment and the owner next day fencing the area off and that's it. This, as I understand it, guided the councilor Jakub Wróblewski when rejecting the projects negatively assessed by the Team in the next vote. Therefore, at the stage of submitting the project, the ownership of the land could be regulated so that the applicant could present an obligation signed by the land owner to: conclude a sale agreement, sign a public-private partnership, transfer into permanent management free of charge to the extent necessary to implement the project. It is a matter of resolving legal doubts, and therefore a field for the lawyers.

   The case of the project promoters is that excluding councilors from this group would be a form of discrimination.

The remark of the councilor Grzegorz Gregorowicz that the funds allocated for the implementation of the civic budget should be decided by the City Council is right. This will be a logical consequence of the applicable legal order.

  Therefore, it is necessary to correct the provision that the Mayor of the City decides to implement the projects referred to in paragraph 1 in the draft budget for a given calendar year. Rather, it should be a commitment as an executive body.

   As for the procedure itself, as the opinion-giving body is a defining body, the final decision on the list of projects approved for voting under BO should belong to the Committee on Budget and Economic Initiatives. It would also be worth discussing whether, when and how much it is possible for applicants to modify projects.