The Municipal Election Commission in Silistra is to decide whether to terminate early the mandate of a municipal councillor after a series of absences from council meetings.
The case follows investigations by “Za Istinata” and the website “Mестен репортер”, which revealed that some municipal councillors had been absent from meetings while continuing to receive their full remuneration.
How the call to terminate the councillor’s mandate came about
The published reports, which contained detailed data on councillors’ absences, predictably provoked discontent among members of the council. Iliana Miteva, from the “For the Left” coalition, decided to issue a rebuttal during the latest regular meeting of the Silistra municipal council.
She took the floor saying she wanted to “exercise her right of reply” – a procedure that does not exist under the council’s rules. In her statement, she claimed that the media had published inaccurate information, although she did not name the publications. Miteva said that her absences for work commitments had not been five, as reported, but two, while the other three had been for health reasons and she had submitted a medical certificate.
She asked for her response to be published and the information corrected, then handed her written statement to a representative of “Za Istinata” and “Местен репортер” who was present at the meeting. Some councillors applauded her.
Under the council’s rules, however, a municipal councillor does not have a statutory “right of reply” under the Radio and Television Act. Her conduct therefore constitutes a breach of the council’s rules and has been described as an attempt to confront the media directly. The matter was referred to the council’s Ethics Commission.
But Miteva’s intervention also prompted a further check, based on the new information she herself had provided.
That review found that Iliana Miteva had been absent from three consecutive meetings out of a total of five without notifying the chair of the Silistra municipal council in writing.
Article 24(1) of the council’s rules states that a councillor’s mandate may be terminated early when, without notifying the council chair in writing of a justified reason for missing a meeting – including work commitments, being abroad, illness or other reasons – the councillor fails to attend three consecutive meetings or a total of five meetings of the council during the year.
The provision mirrors Article 30(4)(5) of Bulgaria’s Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act.
The case is now in the hands of the Silistra election commission
The new information prompted the chair of the Silistra municipal council to notify the Municipal Election Commission of circumstances covered by Article 30(4)(5) of the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act.
The Silistra commission scheduled a meeting for 12 March to consider the notification concerning the possible termination of the councillor’s mandate.
Under the law, within three days of receiving documents establishing the circumstances under Article 30(4)(5), the Municipal Election Commission must notify the councillor. The councillor then has three days from notification to submit a written objection.
At its first meeting in the case, the commission decided to grant Miteva that period to provide an explanation.
What happens next
Within three days of the expiry of the deadline for objections, the Municipal Election Commission must make a decision.
If it finds that the legal grounds for terminating the mandate are present, the commission must terminate the councillor’s powers and declare the next candidate on the electoral list elected.
The case has also exposed another potential problem in Silistra. The municipal council’s legal adviser, Mariana Chobanova, is also chair of the Municipal Election Commission.
In this case, she advised the chair of the municipal council on the notification to the election commission regarding Miteva’s absences – the very matter on which the commission must rule. She also advised Miteva during the relevant period.
This raises questions about whether she will be able to make an objective and impartial decision in the case – a question also being raised by local residents.
This is the second such case in Silistra in which a councillor has faced the possible termination of their mandate because of absences. In 2019, the mandate of BSP municipal councillor Georgi Kirilov was terminated early on the same grounds.
The question now being asked in Silistra is whether the law will be applied in this case as well, or whether a way will be found to protect the councillor from losing her seat.
Meanwhile, after the reports exposing the problems surrounding councillors’ absences, the Temporary Commission tasked with drafting the rules governing the organisation and work of the Silistra municipal council was convened urgently.
The commission decided to prepare amendments introducing actual penalties for absences and increasing transparency over when and why councillors miss meetings.
One proposal is to create a public register on the municipal council’s website listing the reasons for councillors’ absences and the sanctions imposed on them, including the relevant percentage deductions.
The proposal is based on a practice used by the municipal council of Veliko Tarnovo.
The amendments have already been published on the Silistra municipal council’s website for public consultation.
