After the summer break, was held last Thursday at a 11 City Council with the agenda: 1. Protection balance the budget and the implementation of recognition programs EF 2010, 2. Act to address for evaluation and disposal companies; 3. Adoption variant development plan "Facchinaccia. On the first point to the agenda, before entering into the discussion, I put forward the request to refer the point because the documentation available Messac failure to complete the report on the implementation of programs (although the body of the proposal is wrote: "... shall act to approve the attached Accounting Office report on the status of implementation of the programs). If we add that: many months that I'm waiting for some answers from the Head of Economic and financial data and documents relating to deepen the financial statements, responses to me are still denied, even though the subject has also given the provincial Ombudsman in his last 13 September, writes, "has perfected your right to immediately access the file requested "on 8 September, the Board approved a change in the budget and resources on various interventions (by removing a lot of money on the chapter of the school!) for a sum of € 130,000, of which we have been given copy and information only on the morning of Sept. 16, the day stsesso Council did not give us the opportunity to further the accounting data is still ongoing reconnaissance residue by external professionals - rely, however, already challenged both in the approval of the budget is before the Court of Auditors - who do not currently provide a comprehensive assessment of budget balances, and as local councilors to approve this proposal? But this certainly is not lawful to have, when in front of you has a majority that is the arrogance and lack of any space to compare their course of action. In fact, the committee's request was rejected (with me only voted for the directors and Wolves Giordani, Lorenzo abstained, Mancini was absent, all the rest voted against).
Having to go and then vote on the proposal so as presented by the majority, I spoke against the approval (it is associated to my statement the group also UDC), not only for what is written above (which are already sufficient to justify a vote), but also because the data - again, in my view, totally incomplete and of dubious veracity - it is clear that the municipal accounts are increasingly difficult (and, given that this administration is selling many public goods in the coming years we will not have even this solution - for me , to be used only in extreme cases - to raise cash), showing a surplus of administration of only € 9,000 (last year was more than 120,000). If you think that once established consistency in their true residue data could be very different (purtroppo!) than those stated now, what would be the financial condition of our town? I keep repeating that this topic would take more responsibility and that we are still waiting for a public ... The second point
concerned the proposal of the majority, given the new regulations of Law No 122/2010, to authorize the City Council to enable the evaluation and sale of two subsidiaries (the Farmarignano and ASI).
On this point, mine was a request for postponement because: it is the legal term for the sale or liquidation of subsidiaries to 31.12.2011 and since there were still questions that may change the content of the law, it seems unwise to rush into, knowing that in the coming months could be considered the most viable solutions for municipalities, but also for the same workers and the proposal, as formulated, with no content in the manner and timing of implementation, it seems only an act of "empty" and ask the council vote "blank" in the council to delegate all subsequent actions (the Board has every right and duty to comply with certain procedures, without being required to address this type of act) is still not approved the budgets of the ASI (which the Deputy Mayor Count did not show serious lack, for me it made very serious, since these documents should be officially annexed to the municipal budgets), on what basis can be carried out evaluations? On the situation of the subsidiary companies have repeatedly called for an ad hoc meeting of the directors, but the deputy mayor there Conte has repeatedly promised but never organized. Please wait ... In the meantime, given these arguments, my vote, along with that of my other colleague Pd Giordani and that of the two directors of the UDC, which could not be otherwise. The majority, however, approved the proposal in the order of stable (which sadly, after more than four years of tips, see advisers come to meetings only to raise his hand at the time of voting for some, I never had the pleasure of knowing just what was the thought!). On the third point
, that of the variant to the subdivision "Facchinaccia," the majority voted favorably, while the opposition abstained. On this point, however, I have had a victory by unanimously passing an amendment requiring the city council to constrain the amount of variation arising from concession fees to improve the system of sewage disposal in that area is with many problems. On the issue of zoning variations, during the debate, I criticized the Majority Current is also the fact that we can not continue on the development plan in fact, not to put serious consideration to the planning of services (see waterworks, roads, schools, etc..) which, in my view, should take precedence over the construction schedule, observation that this current council has instead completely disregarded.
For this, firmly, I continue to follow my battles in the City Council, convinced to defend the collective interests and that another Rignano you might think and realize, with a sustainable design, increasing participation of citizens in administrative decisions, giving availability, and close in the upcoming municipal elections, for my candidacy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment