Municipal councillors questioned the accuracy of the document, citing a lack of measurable results, inconsistencies and even suspicions that parts of it were copied from the previous year’s report

Tryavna mayor Dencho Minev’s report on the implementation of his administration’s programme for 2025 has been approved despite sharp criticism from municipal councillors. During the council meeting, councillors questioned the accuracy of the figures, the results achieved by the administration and the way in which its performance had been presented.

The report is lengthy, but the debate left questions about how much of the work described had actually been completed by the municipal administration during the year. The document could not be found among the published materials for the council meeting at which it was discussed, nor elsewhere on the municipality’s website. Public access to the report therefore remains limited, raising questions about whether residents of Tryavna are able to assess the administration’s performance for themselves.

During the debate, councillor Boyan Grozev of the local coalition “We Are Coming” questioned the way the results had been presented. He said the administration had formally responded to earlier criticism by linking the report to the mayor’s management programme, but that this alone did not amount to evidence of meaningful implementation.

“I would make an effort to close my eyes and support this report, but I simply cannot juggle with reality to that extent,” Grozev said.

He pointed to the example of municipal housing repairs. According to him, cosmetic work carried out on one or two properties had been presented in the report as the “repair and reconstruction of municipal residential buildings into modern social housing”.

Grozev also questioned the numbering of the objectives listed in the report, which jumps from 10 to 31, 32, 36, 39 and 42. He said this gave the impression of a far larger number of achievements than had actually been delivered.

“We will not accept a lack of results being presented as achievements,” he said, adding that his group would vote against the report.

Criticism of the administration’s effectiveness also came from Dragomir Nikolov of the Union of Free Democrats. He said the document contained a considerable amount of statistical and administrative information but failed to answer the more important question of whether the policies being pursued had actually produced results.

Nikolov raised the issue of photovoltaic installations in the municipality. Despite investment in solar power, he said, electricity costs had changed little, calling into question the impact of the investment in renewable energy.

He also highlighted broader challenges facing Tryavna, including population decline, the departure of younger residents to larger cities and the low growth in foreign direct investment. In his view, these factors were limiting the municipality’s ability to modernise its economy and improve its competitiveness.

Nikolov said the municipality should take a more active approach to attracting investors, including through public-private partnerships and the development of suitable industrial infrastructure.

He also cited figures for average gross wages in Tryavna, which he said placed the municipality 108th in Bulgaria and last in the Gabrovo region.

“Finance is not always the only reason for a lack of effectiveness. That is why I urge you to focus on quality and efficiency,” he told the mayor.

Suspicions of copy and paste

Councillor Zlatka Doneva-Tsaneva of the Revival party raised a specific issue concerning information in the report about the Local Commission for Combating Anti-Social Behaviour among Minors.

According to her, part of the section covering 2025 was almost identical to the corresponding passage in the 2024 report.

As an example, she cited a cultural performance dedicated to the Day of the National Revival Leaders which, according to the available information, had taken place in 2024 but was described in the report as a 2025 event.

The deputy mayor said he could not immediately confirm the date and that the matter would be checked.

“It does not make a good impression to report on 2025 and copy and paste from 2024,” Doneva-Tsaneva said.

Despite the criticism, the report was approved by 10 votes to five, with one councillor abstaining.

The debate exposed a clear divide among councillors over how the administration’s performance should be assessed. Some argued that future reports should contain more measurable indicators, clearly defined results and an assessment of the impact of municipal policies, rather than simply listing activities.

At the same time, the report remains difficult for residents to access. During the discussion it emerged that the document runs to more than 100 pages, yet it has not been published in a way that allows citizens to review it easily.

An annual mayoral report is one of the main tools through which local government is expected to show what it has delivered against its stated priorities. In Tryavna, however, the central question raised by the debate was whether what has been presented as achievement reflects the administration’s actual results.