One waits for such a session with a thrill of excitement: will the City Board receive a vote of confidence or not; more specifically—how will the councillors assess the President’s work throughout the year and the way of spending considerable sums of money, which ultimately constitute the property and assets of us all? The minutes run to 31 pages (excluding appendices), but despite their objective record of facts, they do not convey the atmosphere of the meeting, the temperature of the statements, the strength of the arguments or the tendencies of representatives of the local electorate. Nothing can be done about that, although those interested could watch the entire session of the Municipal Council in Bolesławiec on 25 April this year on the Local Government Local Television. Anyone who had the time and was interested in the course of the lengthy proceedings (from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) could listen carefully to the session and see the protagonists of this peculiar spectacle up close. Therefore, let us limit ourselves to selected issues and restrained commentary. This will not satisfy everyone, but basic realities and the most important facts count. Municipal councillor Hubert PRABUCKI, Deputy Chairman of the Municipal Council, chaired the proceedings efficiently, tactfully and rationally. He did not allow excessive loquacity, and was competent and knowledgeable not only about procedural matters but also about substantive issues. Contrary to appearances, this is a real art when set against the unsettled positions and ways of viewing problems held by the 31 municipal councillors, each of whom is a personality and an individual. Time and the need to synthesise their own thoughts and opinions were everyone’s adversaries. A culture of speech is an unwritten law and custom at the city-wide forum, unlike in specialist committees, where things can vary; at a session, responsibility, prudence and respect for differing opinions and arguments apply. Here, the strength of arguments matters, not arguments based on force or demagogic speeches. That was the case this time as well. And this constitutes a common, important achievement of the collective body.
A few details. Two important issues “fell” from the session agenda: the city development programme for the term of the Municipal Council (the subject requires more thorough consideration) and the establishment of the Local TV Programme Council (the malcontents’ controversies and an attempt to expand the team of experts to include people who are not councillors). They will be analysed at the June session. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee, Stanisław Chirowski, presented information on the results of an audit of spending from the city budget (concerning the work of sports clubs and associations); a resolution was adopted on the gratuitous transfer, by agreement, of the former seat of the Municipal Office at ul. Teatralna into the ownership of the Bolesławiec rural municipality; the work plans of two committees were approved; and a resolution of the Adjudicating Panel of the Regional Chamber of Audit in Wrocław, analysing the execution of the city budget in the previous year, was read out. Its content was, incidentally, very positive.
The ninth session of the Municipal Council is now history. Interpellations were submitted by councillors: Paweł Śliwko, Zdzisław Abramowicz, Janina Piestrak-Babijczuk, Antoni Skobliński, Dorota Pińczuk, Andrzej Chodyra, Eugeniusz Kowalski and Edmund Maliński (commentary on the interpellations). We will return to selected details in the next issue of “GB”—for lack of space. During the discussion before the resolution was adopted, only councillor Z. Abramowicz raised doubts; he was surprised by the discrepancy between the RIO resolutions and the results of the MKT audit concerning the spending of budget funds. The report on the execution of the city budget in 1994 was adopted in an open vote by 27 councillors, with 4 abstentions. The secret vote on the vote of confidence for the City Board produced the same result: 4 municipal councillors voted against, while the others supported the policy pursued by the local government authorities.
Let us omit all commentary here—the result speaks for itself. Triumphalist notes, congratulations and delight over a “crushing victory” are unnecessary, because it is simply impossible to reason in these categories: that road leads nowhere. If, during the June elections, the President had a 14-person opposition, and today the number of “opponents” has fallen to 4, this is an unequivocal and highly meaningful measure of progress, agreement, consensus and common-sense thinking. Nor is there any need to strive for unanimity, acclamation, complete agreement or identification of views. But neither is there any need to cling like a fanatic or a troublemaker to the opposition’s lost positions. In accordance with the principles of democracy, the city’s fate is decided by the majority of councillors elected by the local community; they also bear full responsibility for the methodology and effectiveness of governance. In the town on the Bóbr, councillors are able to reach agreement despite their differences of opinion on many matters. They have abandoned private agendas and the pursuit of particular interests, which is a good omen for the future. In acting pro bono publico, party membership cards and political orientations do not matter. That is how it should be, and fortunately that is what happened in Bolesławiec. Full idyll is still a long way off, but a significant step forward has been taken.
The resolution on the programme for preventing and resolving alcohol-related problems unexpectedly aroused controversy. It was presented by psychologist and councillor Wojciech KRZYWDZIŃSKI. His emotional and rational commitment, together with his professionalism, convinced even the opponents, and the programme is now in force. The councillors decided to transfer, free of charge, the building housing the authorities of Gmina Bolesławiec to its user. In his address, commune head Kazimierz Gawron called it an important integrative decision and confirmation of the exemplary cooperation between the two local-government communities. A resolution granting Honorary Citizenship of the City of Bolesławiec to Reverend Władysław RĄCZKA was adopted unanimously (we write about this separately).
PIASTOWSKA GATE AS SEEN FROM THE MARKET SQUARE.
And once again there was a bone of contention over the election of the chairman of the Economic Development and Finance Committee—a party (club) “tug-of-war,” just as in the Sejm: councillor E. Maliński proposed abandoning the election, while councillor Krzysztof Bąk opposed this. In the vote, 24 councillors supported the latter’s motion; on behalf of the Independent Councillors’ Club, he put forward and presented the candidacy of councillor Janina Piestrak-Babijczuk. Once again there was a verbal dispute, the details of which we will spare readers. The motion for a secret vote failed, and ultimately 25 councillors elected JANINA PIESTRAK-BABIJCZUK as head of the committee (1 opposed, 4 abstained). So what was all the commotion for?
And one more “cuckoo’s egg” tossed to the councillors, connected with the monument by the building of the District Police Headquarters. There was a heated dispute between councillors Eugeniusz Kowalski and Stanisław Andrusieczko, and a considered opinion from Superintendent ADAM RÓŻYCKI. In the end, the City President’s mediating talent prevailed: the matter cannot be settled immediately, and the issue will return for analysis before the City Board. Here, emotions play a decidedly smaller role.
It is not easy to be a councillor today: the exercise of a democratically elected public mandate brings no shortage of tensions, stress and controversy. A year has already passed since the local-government elections. It is hard to resist the reflection that in Bolesławiec this time has been fully utilised thanks to the consensus achieved right at the beginning. Here, everyone looks for what unites rather than divides, what serves the city and its residents rather than particular interests and personal ambitions. Agreement builds; disagreement destroys.
Hence, the vote of confidence for the City Board is a good omen and gives rise to optimism.