As we read on the website of the Nowogrodziec Municipal Office:
The case of the June session of the Nowogrodziec Municipal Council, during which councillors refused to grant the Mayor of Nowogrodziec a vote of approval for the execution of the 2024 budget, has received an unequivocal assessment from the Regional Chamber of Audit in Wrocław.
The opinion of the RIO Adjudicating Panel dated 31 July 2025 leaves no doubt—the Council’s resolution was assessed negatively, and the procedure for adopting it violated the basic principles of a fair assessment of budget execution.
Municipal officials explain:
During the vote-of-approval session on 13 June 2025, only 5 councillors voted in favour, 8 voted against, and 1 councillor abstained. The resolution denying the vote of approval was not formally adopted, even though its wording should have followed from the voting result. This omission did not release the Regional Chamber of Audit from its obligation to assess the Council’s actions—as the Adjudicating Panel noted, the essence of supervision is examining whether the vote-of-approval procedure was conducted in accordance with the law, regardless of whether the relevant document was drawn up.
What is the RIO’s opinion?
The authorities of Nowogrodziec:
The RIO indicated that during the session there was no actual assessment of the execution of the 2024 budget. Moreover, no objections were raised concerning the level of revenue or expenditure execution, nor were any irregularities identified that could constitute grounds for denying the vote of approval. The opinions of both the Economic Development and Budget Committee and the Audit Committee were positive, and the Regional Chamber of Audit had also previously assessed the report on budget execution positively.
Instead of a substantive discussion of the budget, councillors presented a series of allegations concerning, among other things, the lack of investment, the staffing situation at the office, and the mayor’s personnel decisions. The RIO clearly stated that these issues cannot constitute grounds for denying the vote of approval, since the vote-of-approval institution concerns only budget execution.
“Reviewing the report on budget execution and assessing its implementation is crucial to the vote-of-approval procedure. The vote itself cannot replace a substantive debate and a reliable analysis of the documents”—the opinion states.
As municipal officials emphasize:
In the RIO’s assessment, the Nowogrodziec Municipal Council failed to fulfil its obligation to review the report on budget execution, and the procedure conducted did not meet the requirements arising from Article 18(2)(4) of the Act on Municipal Government. It is this provision that indicates that the only legally justified basis for denying the vote of approval may be a negative assessment of budget execution.
The Chamber also pointed to the lack of an open debate concerning the budget itself—numerical data were not analysed, no questions were asked, and the degree of implementation of financial plans was not discussed. All this leads to one unequivocal conclusion: the vote-of-approval assessment was not conducted properly.
The office concludes:
The Adjudicating Panel pointed out that combining assessments concerning the report on the municipality’s condition with an assessment of budget execution is impermissible. Meanwhile, the councillors who voted against the vote of approval presented no arguments related to the municipality’s finances, basing their position solely on criticism of the mayor’s activities in other areas.
The RIO stressed that the vote of approval is not an assessment of policy directions or strategic plans—it is a strict, formalized review of budget execution, not a referendum on the popularity of the executive authorities.
And asks:
In light of this opinion, it is impossible not to ask: was the June vote genuinely an expression of concern for the municipality’s finances, or perhaps a political manifesto that had no basis in the documents?
What does this mean for the municipality?
The administrative court may overturn the aforementioned resolution.