The 2019-2023 Mandate for the Municipal Council of Sevlievo can be described as the most boring and fruitless in recent decades for the municipality.
The meetings, with very few exceptions, do not last more than an hour – a time during which councilors approve between 30 and 40 proposals from the mayor and the municipal administration, while debates over the four years since the start of the mandate are counted on one hand.
In the plenary hall, answers are not heard because there are no questions. There is no explanation for negative votes, as there are no negative votes. There are also no speeches, except for the statement from the chair of the relevant permanent committee, which usually sounds like this: “The Permanent Committee reviewed the proposal from the municipal administration and recommends it be supported.” This is always in response to the Council Chair’s call for debates, but since there are none, the next line is: “Colleagues, please vote to end the debates.”
Voting is held to end something that never actually took place, and the meeting moves on to the next item. In the end, the session is closed “due to the exhaustion of the agenda.”
Just a Procedure
Due to the lack of conflicting opinions and positions, over time, the meetings have become a mere adherence to the procedure for conducting them. All of this evidently serves the ruling party, at a cost of nearly one million leva—this is the amount taxpayers have paid since 2019 for the upkeep of the Municipal Council in Sevlievo.
Nearly 600,000 leva have been paid in salaries to the silent municipal councilors in Sevlievo, and almost 350,000 leva have been allocated in taxes and social security contributions on their wages. When all is said and done, it turns out that against 1 million leva, the ruling party has gained comfort and peace of mind, confident in the support of everything they submit for voting.
To eliminate any doubt about the productivity of the Sevlievo municipal councilors, “Za Istinata” requested information from the municipal council office regarding their activity. The request was made in early June under the Law on Access to Public Information, two months before the end of the mandate, assuming they go on their usual vacation in August.
No Information on Activity
“We do not provide information on the activity of the municipal councilors, as discussions are held in the permanent committees, and the questions arising from the proposals for decisions are apparently clarified there,” stated the response from Chairwoman Zdravka Laleva. By this, she confirms that her colleagues in the plenary hall are completely passive and attempts to justify this with their work in the committees.
However, Laleva fails to mention that while the meetings of the permanent committees are open to the public, they are neither broadcast live nor recorded, unlike the sessions of the Municipal Council. Additionally, the meetings are attended primarily by members of the respective committee and relevant municipal administration officials, while all municipal councilors are present in the plenary hall.
In fact, the plenary hall is where opinions can be heard, and in the name of democracy, it is best that they are conflicting, allowing for clarification of the contentious points surrounding the proposals for decisions. It is no coincidence that the work of the National Assembly is structured in the same way as in local Municipal Councils—following the sequence: discussion in a permanent committee, debate in the plenary hall, and voting. The absence of one of these steps undermines the democratic process in decision-making, and society is deprived of the opportunity to hear how those elected defend their interests.
No Questions for the Mayor for Safety
The four-year absence of debate in the Municipal Council of Sevlievo is not its only distinguishing feature. The councilors are reluctant to ask questions of the mayor and municipal administration. In the four years since the beginning of the mandate, 24 questions have been directed to the mayor, two of which were on the same subject. Nine of the questions came from one councilor representing a civic organization.
“Position” Not Voted
In addition to all of the above, it should be noted the enduring trend that has developed in recent years within the Sevlievo Municipal Council—councilors attend meetings but do not vote during the voting process.
Such behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. It contradicts the rules for the organization and activities of the Municipal Council, according to which decisions are made by voting “for,” “against,” or “abstaining.” The latter is an option for those councilors who are neither “for” nor “against,” and by voting “abstaining,” they indicate they do not have a definitive position.
However, what does a councilor declare who does not vote in any of the three ways? Their vote is not counted; therefore, whether they are present in the hall or outside is irrelevant, as the voting record system simply marks a dash next to their name, indicating no vote. If minutes from meetings are reviewed later, it cannot be determined whether Councilor X was present during the voting, for which the system has recorded that they did not vote.
Not voting is, in fact, a form of deception—by this, the councilor deceives the voter into believing they are working for their interests. The real deception is that they are not working at all. The legislator did not provide for councilors to be mere bodies in the plenary hall; adequate actions and positions are expected from them. This is recorded in their obligations—Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure for the Municipal Council of Sevlievo states that a councilor must participate in resolving the issues considered by the Municipal Council. However, it is not specified what happens if they neglect their duties.
It turns out that the names of the municipal councilors who do not vote also cannot be provided, despite “Za Istinata” requesting a report on all cases of “not voting.” “There is no available reliable information on this; the voting system does not reflect ‘not voting,'” states the response from Chairwoman Laleva.
Thus, with less than a hundred days before the local elections, it would be prudent for voters to reflect on what their local representatives have accomplished so far. Many of the municipal councilors will again seek the votes of their fellow citizens, and to ensure accountability, it must be clear what citizens receive in return for their trust and their money.
