Petycja1 | Watchdog | Miasto Obywatelskie Lubartów

December 28, 2015

It will be long, boring, impossible ...
( but I collect everything for the so-called purchase)

The resolution rejecting our complaint was accepted. I share some of the arguments of both councilor Grzegorz Gregorowicz and vice-chairman Andrzej Zieliński.

Using the arguments adopted by the Audit Committee in the justification of the draft resolution, I can remind you that the Mayor 5.11 wrote "in response to the" petition "of Ladies ..." (sorry, again, I am not quoting the entire sentence). Considering the literally quoted passage, the letter was qualified as a petition by the respondent because that was the term he used. And that should close the procedural discussion on this topic.
However, this did not happen. In addition, the Commission argues that the complaint was rejected on the grounds that even if the petition was considered a petition, the Mayor still had time to consider it. So - literally again - indirectly recognizing that it is what it really is.

The Commission cites a fragment of Art. 2 on petitions. It reads in full:
Art. 2. 1. A petition may be submitted by a natural person, legal person, organizational unit that is not a legal person or a group of these entities, hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner", to a public authority, as well as to a social organization or institution in connection with tasks commissioned by it in the field of public administration.
2. A petition may be submitted in the interests of:
1) public;
2) the petitioner;
3) a third party, with his consent.
3. The subject of a petition may be a request, in particular, for a change in the law, a decision or other action in a matter concerning the petitioner, collective life or values requiring special protection for the common good, falling within the tasks and competences of the petitioner.
... and indicates that we have incorrectly identified the addressee.
He did not stay.
We say, among others on collective life, values that require special protection in the name of the common good, falling within the scope of tasks and competences of the petitioner. The mayor manages the day-to-day affairs of the commune - let me remind you that by "commune" the legislator understands the self-government community and the relevant territory, while the self-government community is made up of the inhabitants of the commune. Performing their tasks with the help of the office.
If the employment of the unemployed is to improve their quality of life, even in the short term, we are talking here about social good, an added value in collective life. I am intentionally not writing here about the effects of unemployment on the non-material level, because it should be obvious.

Mr Paweł Skrzydlewski from the Catholic University of Lublin mentions the way civilization is understood on the basis of "how it relates to five areas of values, five categories of human existence everywhere and at all times (...): morality, conventionally called good; knowledge (cognition), called truth; the field of health and related matters; the field of property, prosperity; the field of proportion, order, harmony, called beauty "*

Mr. Hubert Izdebski postulates that “the role of petitions in relation to local government units cannot be limited to a kind of substitution of a civic initiative for resolution. Petitions - as an expression of interest in the performance of public tasks by a local government, containing not only signaling a specific problem, but also appropriate proposals from a group of residents - can be an instrument for efficient solving of social problems at the stage of developing an administrative policy in a given field, not requiring appropriate legislative acts, such as also at the stage of implementing this policy by issuing individual acts. **

The disputed fragment is, in my opinion, another argument for which the petition should be treated as a petition, as it contains a specific postulate. The act contains only an exemplary action. If "the purpose of the petition is to persuade the authorities to take a specific position on a matter or to take the decision expected by the interested party" ***, the postulate of employing unemployed people to distribute tax decisions is most appropriate here. There may also be redheads among them, as indicated by opponents of this solution. However, the argument relating to the exterior is inadmissible.

Regarding the arguments, the authority / head, etc., I would like to say that the parents in "somewhere in Poland" submitted a petition regarding the objection to the dismissal of one of the kindergarten teachers. Nota bene - effective. On the other hand, "somewhere in Poland" other people submitted a petition to maintain employment at the current level. Here, in turn, without a positive result. I do not know if it was possible without shifting the handwriting from the left pocket to the right.

I admit that I listen to the opinion with disgust that employing the unemployed will not provide a high-quality service, because it segregates the city's inhabitants. And I wonder why officials were not hired to survey the inhabitants. It was no less trustworthy. Just like in the statistical team in which I had the pleasure to work. Among the unemployed, there are people with a different level of education and material status, but with a specific social status articulated. The only word I am pressed for this is - shame.

President Andrzej Duda appointed the National Development Council, in which one of the problem teams is called: Local Government, Cohesion Policy, in which our Mayor sits. And congratulations!
One of the priorities of the EU cohesion policy for 2014-2020 is inclusive growth - that is, supporting an economy characterized by a high level of employment and ensuring economic, social and territorial cohesion. Combating social exclusion and counteracting poverty.

We have repeatedly indicated our city as a positive example - in terms of publishing the register of contracts, session minutes or publishing audiovisual records of the sessions. However, when receiving my diploma in the Senate of the Republic of Poland and speaking at the conference that was taking place at that time, in my boldest visions, I could not imagine such a discussion around the issue that is currently taking place in Lubartów. I hope it will be soon. I would like the matter to end positively, but so far it should be at least good for 2016: that we would be healthy.

Anna Gryta

* http://www.bu.kul.pl/…/57/wydzial/biblioteka/cywilizacja.pdf
** H. Izdebski, Petition as an instrument of efficient solving of social problems in local government units - significant differences between an application and a complaint http://www.petycje.edu.pl/uploads/…/Petycje%20ekspertyza.pdf
*** Piotr Winczorek, Commentary to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997

December 28, 2015

We provide all materials related to the petition, because the matter is important both in the procedural and content layer

We are also pleased that independent, local media have become interested in it.

http://www.tubalubartowa.pl/aktualnosci/czytaj/487/Skarga-na-burmistrza-teraz-do-wojewody-lubelskiego

We also treated the complaint with discretion

https://lubartow24.pl/informacje/lokalne/99248/lubartow:_skarga_na_burmistrza_uznana_za_bezzasadna/

By way of comment
Thanks Tuba Lubartowa and Monika Kozak
http://www.tubalubartowa.pl/video/kanaly/kogelmogel/_0PcS-MIlFU

December 21, 2015

Adoption of a resolution on the complaint

It seems that tomorrow - the last time this year councilors will meet at the Session. The agenda includes, among others adopting a resolution on a complaint against the Mayor of Lubartów.
This is our complaint about the failure to fulfill the statutory obligation under the Petitions Act. The draft resolution, declaring the complaint unfounded, is not a special surprise for us, given the distribution of votes in the Audit Committee.

Of course, we will not let the matter go, to justify the draft resolution, we present our position to the councilors along with a motion to accept the complaint. We also publish them here so that residents can get acquainted with it. We believe that this will dispel any doubts, so that we will not see any abstentions. If the resolution is adopted, we will continue to appeal.

Therefore, we expect the councilors to take a specific position on this matter.

25 November 2015

How does it work in Parczewo?

How does the Petitions Act work in the Poviat Starosty in Parczewo? Please check. The comparison is definitely to our disadvantage.

Register of petitions

24 November 2015

What will the councilors do with the complaint?

We are waiting for the decision of the Councilors and then, possibly the Administrative Court. On the other hand, due to personal interferences, I am considering a civil lawsuit. The journalists received the same answer from us Lubartów Community.

Meanwhile, the material of Tuba Lubartowska and Dziennik Wschodni on November 20, 2015.

November 19 2015

Why is the government selectively treating the inhabitants of Lubartów?

     By residents, I mean - officials?
"The good of the inhabitants" (quotation marks not accidental, but more on that later) is spoken by our stewards very often. "Our Inhabitants" is just as common.
It should be asked - whose good and which - ours?
    The mayor was to decide whether the unemployed would be able to distribute decisions about the amount of property tax. He wrote back that the decision would be dictated by the provision of high-quality services, care for the welfare of all residents, in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Code and based on cost calculation.
   Today we learned that the Mayor does not believe that the unemployed guarantee high-quality services and entrusting them with this task is not in accordance with the good of the inhabitants or with the regulations. Stigmatizing? Offensive? Why? Who knows.
   I admit that it is especially incomprehensible in the context of the presence of the Mayor as a specialist in local government and cohesion policy.
Why today? We risk saying that because of today's Session of the City Council. It is necessary to say a few sentences about the sequence of events and why we perceive this answer with particular distaste.
   At the end of August, we sent an application to the Mayor to implement such a system of delivering tax decisions as in the well-known city of Lubartów - Wągrowiec.
    The City Treasurer of Wągrowiec, Mr. Tomasz Pachowicz wrote to us that this solution has been functioning for 10 years, and in addition to the purely economic aspect (lower cost), employing messengers from among the long-term unemployed also has a psychological aspect in the form of activating people who, due to their age, for example, have little chance of finding a job in Wągrowiec.
Maybe we don't understand something, but isn't it for the sake of the residents?
   In any case, we did not receive a response to the application from August and we sent a reminder after 20 days, i.e. in September. Then we got the answer quoted above, that is good, that high quality, etc. And that at the right time.
In our opinion, it was not an answer of the nature of a decision, so we decided to write a petition to the Mayor at the beginning of October.
    To which he replied in the same way at the beginning of November, that is, at the right time and with concern, etc. By writing "petition" in quotation marks in the body of the letter.
So once again no decision has been made. Why?
     Is it for fear of the public? Where does our presumption come from?
Well, from the fact that, according to the law, a decision should be made. Similarly, the content of our petition should be placed on the city's website. It did not happen, so we wrote a complaint about the mayor's action to the Lubartów City Council.
    Here we come back to today's Session. Let you settle the issue of the time limits for the delivery of letters to the Council. Because we know when we fold and when it is not known to the councilors that we fold.
But in the meantime, today we are receiving a response from the Mayor to the complaint, which - incidentally - was not the addressee. And here is a complete surprise.
    First, the Mayor writes that our petition is not a petition in his opinion. How do we understand that the Mayor did not classify the letter as a petition, we should not read it in the body of the answer, but guess that the word petition was put in quotation marks (?)
    Secondly, the Mayor indicates that we are writing this letter to the other person in the person of the Mayor, because - according to the response to the complaint - the Mayor acts in two persons: as a public authority body and as the head of the City Hall. We know which person the Mayor considers to be the recipient, but we, in turn, know that in both cases we are dealing with public funds and acting for the "good of the inhabitants", so we say that both of them are addressees, and maybe even - horror of horrors - jointly. Both the management and the hiring.
    Thirdly, we received a reply to the petition - with the date and content indicated. So now it makes no sense to say that it could not be posted on the city site, or the "reply" to it. The use of a punctuation mark (quotation marks) has no meaning in this regard. After all, it was possible to write back that the letter was considered a request. But it didn't write.
    Fourthly - going back to the essence and the most important thing, that is, what we petitioned for - in response to the complaint, the Mayor writes today that no civil law contracts will be concluded for the delivery of payment decisions, nor will additional employees be hired on the basis of an employment contract. So we have this appropriate time to make a decision. But what does that mean? That officials will not do it, since it does not plan to conclude such agreements? Will they only expand their scope of activities now?
Is it just that the Mayor believes that the unemployed will be dishonest or dishonest?
    As part of the survey, the interviewers received a list of addresses and urns to which the residents threw the questionnaires. And they were not city officials. Other people entered these surveys into the tables. And they were not city officials. Recruitment to conduct censuses is also announced periodically. And they are not city officials.

Perhaps we understand consistency differently. Perhaps we understand the welfare of the inhabitants differently. On request and on the petition, we received a reply that the Mayor would make a decision in due course. Today we get a response to the complaint along with the decision, that is the moment when it is known that there will be a discussion at the Session is the "appropriate" time. Of course, the matter does not end in procedural terms, but in fact it is less important than the well-being of the inhabitants, which is repeated ad nauseam. When preparing the city's budget for 2016, someone will probably make a "cost calculation". Including those that will be allocated to social assistance.
What is the good of the residents for you?

Media about the complaint

13 November 2015

A complaint against the mayor's action

In relation to the reaction to our petition - I do not know why it was put in quotation marks - we are complaining about the manner in which it was dealt with. Below we publish a reasoned complaint, as well as replies to: the application and the petition, concerning a single initiative. We are trying to introduce a solution that is successfully operating in Wągrowiec.

On the occasion of our post, we offer a small test for perceptiveness. The trick is to find all the details that distinguish the answer to the request from the answer to the petition.

6 November 2015

Prophetic. Unfortunately

Unfortunately, it so happened that Piotr VaGla Waglowski foresaw in the article " The law of petitions - the law is about to come, so I indicate my objections to it " - the Lubartian scenario of the fate of the petition.
Why unfortunately?
Because our petition has not been where it should be.
The answer is "Why not?" "Because no" or if you prefer "I don't know yet, and nothing to you."
The taste of the whole story is added by the fact that the Mayor of Lubartów was appointed to the National Development Council in the section Self-government, cohesion policy.
And so Lubartów loses to Wągrowiec once again?

October 27 2015

Act on petitions