Once a year, the local government is required to publicly account to residents for its activities. This is precisely what the report on the municipality’s condition and the debate preceding the vote of confidence in the city president are intended to serve.
This is one of the most important events in local democracy. Residents can not only listen to the authorities and councillors, but also speak themselves. At least in theory.
During this year’s Bolesławiec City Council session, a resident appeared for the first time in history who decided to exercise this right. He was istotne.pl journalist Krzysztof Gwizdała. He submitted an application, collected more than the required 50 residents’ signatures and delivered the documents on time. He wanted to draw attention to issues that, in his view, had been omitted from the report on the city’s condition.
However, he was not allowed to speak.
Council Chair Łukasz Jaźwiec decided that the application did not meet the formal requirements. The problem was that the official announcement published by the city office in the Public Information Bulletin listed only three conditions: submitting an application, collecting at least 50 residents’ signatures and meeting the deadline.
It was only during the session that it emerged that the city’s statutes contained additional requirements that had not been mentioned in the announcement. These included providing the addresses of people supporting the application and using specific clauses concerning the processing of personal data.
It was precisely the absence of these elements that was allegedly the basis for refusing to allow the resident to take part in the debate.
It is difficult not to get the impression that formalism prevailed in the entire matter, while the idea of residents’ participation in public life lost out. This is all the more significant because the city’s statutes also provide for the session chair to give the floor to people present in the room. Łukasz Jaźwiec could therefore have allowed the resident to speak regardless of the dispute over the application. However, he did not choose to do so.
As a result, the debate on the report on the city’s condition took place without residents’ participation.
This is a paradoxical situation. The local government encourages citizens to be active, social organisations and experts remind people of the importance of the report on the municipality’s condition, and when someone appears who is willing to devote time, prepare a statement and collect residents’ signatures, that person is stopped by formal obstacles.
Regardless of how the views or activities of the person who wanted to speak are assessed, it is difficult to regard such an outcome as a success for local democracy.
– Łukasz Jaźwiec ruined the celebration of democracy. The debate on the report on the city’s condition was supposed to honour self-government and provide an opportunity for residents to talk with the authorities. Instead, we will remember it primarily because the first resident who decided to exercise his legal right was not allowed to speak. And if residents cannot speak during the most important debate about the condition of their own city, then who is this debate actually organised for? – concludes Krzysztof Gwizdała.
The journalist announces legal action over being prevented from speaking.
Reporting difficult issues is not always welcomed by those in power. Independent media can then lose advertising from public institutions. The future of local journalism therefore depends primarily on readers. If you value our work, you can support us.