Civic City of Lubartów

We have been writing about the reservations to the civic budget since its introduction.

In addition, these are not empty reservations, but the effect of our going out on the street and talking to residents. You can read the introduction to the Committee, ie the discussion at the session, in issue 2 of "Stories about participation". However, it is worth considering the Commission itself. And not only because in the new resolution on diets, councilors are guaranteed additional money for participation in such bodies.

After hearing the audio, we don't know if it's more fun or scary.

​

​

On September 26, 2019, at the 12th session of the Lubartów City Council, the Emergency Commission for the Civic Budget of the City of Lubartów was appointed. It was composed of councilors:

Jacek Tchórz

Anna Kuszner

Beata Pasikowska

Tomasz Krówczyński

What is ad hoc, in terms of legal assumptions, to be performed by the legislative body of the City Council?

A, well, you have to deal with the REGULATIONS, called for failure to recognize "RULES AND MODE FOR CONSULTING CONSULTATIONS ON THE CIVIL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF LUBARTÓW"

We briefly present the subjective minutes of the proceedings of the Commission. Of course, we encourage you to listen to the original audio.

​

Grzegorz Gregorowicz, chairman of the Council , welcomed and initially delivered words of encouragement to the body:

"(...) you will not be able to handle the task for which the Council has appointed you. Because the Council appointed you to write new regulations, according to which you will also proceed both by the Mayor and the City Council. (...) If someone attacked us, or you are acting sluggishly, we have an example where others who are much more enlightened than us are too much enlightened. they took their time.

That is why I advise you that two or three meetings should be devoted to working out good regulations. What, you already know, but I have two or three comments on what the regulations should be.

First of all, these regulations, which are in force at the moment, do not take into account the possibility of participation in the participation in BO also of other ownership groups, other than only municipal ones. That is, there is a lack of the Treasury, cooperative property and community property. What, for example, my Club - Wspólny Lubartów was trying to do. But a second comment right away, taught by experience, I see a certain danger if we do not control this money actually reaching the citizens. And in this sense, according to For example, I must be forbidden to assume that, within the entire pool, not all funds from this pool, out of this one percent, will go to one type of owner. So that, for example, if there are 4 projects, then, for example, that all 4 will not go to cooperatives, communities or the State Treasury. So perhaps it is necessary to introduce limits in advance that, for example, no more than 50% of the funds are to be at the disposal of one ownership body, that is, of a different type of owners (...) Two. That year, for example, the cooperative had 4, only bicycle races, probably not the Bicycle Festival, but I say this as a man who is elected by the votes of the cooperatives, that they should also receive this civic fund, but not all the money should reach. They should proportionately reach all social and ownership groups in Lubartów. This is the second remark, and the third remark, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is related to the fact that I think aloud that the owners have already arranged it, aha, if we divide and allow, for example, cooperatives and communities, please pay attention and please keep it. In my opinion, this is advice, I do not repeat - not a guideline - it is advice that there is some period of access, at least 5 or 10 years, so that everyone, regardless of the type of property on which the civic budget will be implemented, is not to limit access in any form of communication, transport to other groups and, for example, I will tell you where I see a limitation. I hear, it is a very dangerous dilemma if this idea is implemented, and I think there are good chances that it will, I hear that all cooperative areas are to be boarded up, if so, in my opinion the condition of accessibility to this area will be excluded and such areas should be excluded from the BO.

Pay attention to it, i.e. someone will say then that, for example, you can get to on foot. Not. Any means of transport commonly used by these owners so that it would also be available to others, at no additional cost. So, when a cooperative fencing its areas, in my opinion, it excludes itself whether it should exclude itself from being divided into a participatory budget. Ladies and gentlemen, I do not know if I have exhausted everything. Just one more note as I believe I have some experience. This is my one-sided remark from previous years, please use it at every stage of the debate, whether it is just the session. Alternatively, I am at your disposal, I can even come to the whole session, I can find some materials, I can share some knowledge, but I think it would be great if you would finish the session in October, or in the middle of November, by mid-November. Because at the end there must be a session that will accept or amend these regulations. So please don't take what you do will already have the final picture. Not. It may turn out that your work will only be a trigger to take a comma here, add a comma there and distort your work at all, if the Council decides that it is not entirely correct. But I believe in you. So ladies and gentlemen, I am concluding the opening of the sitting and moving on to the second point, which is the constitution of the Commission. In parentheses - election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee.

I will be up to the stage of election of the chairman, and then the chairman himself will choose the vice-chairman himself. And after the election of the chairman, I will end my presence here.

Therefore, since you have four people, there is only one chairman, please submit your candidacy. I note that there will be an open vote. It would be best if there was one candidate, because then the fight would be different, but maybe it is needed. Please submit your candidacy.

​

And it started (ed.)

​

​

One of the councilors proposed the candidacy of the councilor Tomasz Krówczyński.

The list of nominations was closed and voting started.

Councilor Krówczyński becomes the Chairman.

The chairman went on to present his own proposal ... ah, no (heheszki)

The chairman proposed to the Councilor Kuszner to take the position of the Vice-Chairwoman of the Committee. This was also the case with 3 votes in favor and one abstention.

​

​

The concept of the Krówczyński Councilor : Let us not formulate the provisions of the Regulations (!?) Let us produce a set of guidelines and, through the Chairman of the City Council, ask for the preparation of the final Regulations for the legal services of the City Hall.

So how? The commission is to meet and set out, and the legal services of the City Hall are to be dealt with. We wonder who is to do all the work for the Commission, according to the concept of the Councilor Krówczyński, and what is the opinion of the Chairman of the Council?

Let's move on. Because the Chairman of the Committee, Tomasz Krówczyński, goes into details. So he refined the work plan for the legal services of the City Hall 😂🤔

Are we writing untruth? Oh, it must be quoted verbatim.

​

Councilor Tomasz Krówczyński :

(...) hence my proposal is that instead of producing records, we produce a set of guidelines and, through the Chairman of the City Council, ask for the preparation of the final Regulations for the legal services of the City Hall. In line with these guidelines. They will present it to us, we will get acquainted with their product. We'll discuss some more, okay? And then it will be the final material to be presented to the City Council. This is my suggestion. What do you think about it? Yes, in this way we will avoid unnecessary confusion (robots - editor's note) and we should proceed with this deliberation efficiently. I am opening the discussion, so I have already opened it. Excuse me.

Anyone else would like to speak?

​

Councilor Jacek Tchórz

Well, maybe just present your proposal to us, let's see what it looks like and then we will relate to something. Because now there is really nothing to do. (rightly! Ed.)

Chairman Krówczyński's proposal :  Mind map. We will not show.

He started with a short historical and organizational outline: "And where else, they have both". Hmm .. this was supposed to be on the committee? Besides, in our opinion, the Councilor does not understand the subject of the work of the Commission.

​

The subject of the Committee's work is to develop the "RULES AND MODE FOR CONSULTING CONSULTATIONS ON THE CIVIL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF LUBARTÓW", ie the Regulations. Meanwhile, we hear from the President of the Commission that public consultations are, oh there, oh there, non-binding. And that we (the authorities) may not implement the winning projects, because consultations are not binding. I see. They may or may not be implemented, but the practice is different, however, to implement projects with BO. When people came and voted, no one will take political risk and refuse to implement such a project.

What do you think, the lecture is on the subject, or rather next to it?

History, history, history ...

​

Councilor Jacek Tchórz

His point is, the practice is this and that. Was.

Let's move on

The omission is influenced by political forces. Tomasz Krówczyński, a local politician, said: whoever screams louder, more people will be brought to the halls, we do it.

​

We remind the Councilor that this is called activating the local community.

Councilors Beata Pasikowska and Anna Kuszner made a desperate attempt to direct the discussion to the subject of the meeting. This attempt, however, met with passive resistance on the part of the Chairman, who, after all, sat over the presentation and, just like that, will not give up the lecture. After all, he is the chairman and he has the power;)

PART II

In the second part, about how the President's doubts multiply along with the racing of thoughts ...

​

Is it at all, and if so, how much? How and when? Then what to do with it?

Shocking! At one point, Chairman Krówczyński puts forward the thesis that people can choose wrong. So that the preliminary verification of projects in terms of public utility is to be assessed by councilors?

​

We are sorry, but the words of councilor Tomasz Krówczyński cannot be summarized and we rewrite it verbatim:

"(...) now yes, I agree with what, what ... Would you like to speak? (To councilor Jacek the Coward). Not. I agree with what you said, so I would like to say straight away. Maybe let's do this: I will present it and let's not discuss it, just the whole scheme, you will get the materials and we will start the discussion, then we will have a lawyer, we will have a Treasurer, on this, because it has to be like this. And then yes, there will be a discussion about it here in the Clubs. True? And then it will be possible to discuss the details, so maybe let's not go into these details now, but just present. Just a clean narrative, without getting into a discussion just to make it clear so you know what the author meant when you read it. Yes? I say this is a proposal and there are many points to be discussed.

Another thing, so let's leave this legal basis here, I think it is important because we must have, as it were, clearly stated in the regulations, on which provisions we build the rest. This is it.

Next. Item Ownership. Item Ownership. What we will do, if the property of a tangible object, or a playground, or a fountain, or whatever, well, then, since this is public money, I can't imagine and that's why I wrote it here, of course, how will we discuss again, oh still the local government unit remains the owner, right? And now yes. If someone had the idea that another entity could be the owner of this item for various reasons, because life knows different cases, then we will of course discuss it. I put a question mark. Only that this is a potential source of conflict later between this entity and the city or groups of councilors, let's say one way or another. Because it is not about, let's say, some historical things, but that it is a potential source of conflict - in my opinion. This is the source of the conflict.

Now yes. Land ownership. What Chairman Gregorowicz said. So yes, I am a supporter of the solution, here I agree with the President that with the fact that our regulations lack the ownership of the State Treasury, but any other private entity, here again, well, aha, okay, okay, okay, in okay. That's right, okay, okay. Well, it could be a local government unit, that is, our commune, or another entity, but here again, yes, yes, but here again, I see the source of the conflict, a potential one, right? Next case. Property rights to the subject.

If there is a material thing, then again, property rights, we are talking about copyrights, of course, because there are some cultural events, someone invented something, copyrights are inalienable, but property rights do not have anything to do with our regulations. And it would also be worthwhile in my opinion (voice from the room)… yes, yes, I am telling the city, because again it is related to the property of the object, yes. It would also be worth it in these regulations, well, here we have the source of the conflict, if it is not in the regulations. In my opinion. And the transfer of property rights, this should also be described in the regulations somehow.

Okay. Let's move on…"

The councilor also has a problem with determining what constitutes the city's own income.

Is own income your own income + supplementary income? Or maybe even credits ...

​