Архив сайта
Декабрь 2017 (30)
Ноябрь 2017 (13)
Октябрь 2017 (21)
Сентябрь 2017 (28)
Август 2017 (45)
Июль 2017 (42)
Календарь
«    Февраль 2018    »
ПнВтСрЧтПтСбВс
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
ГОЛОСОВАНИЕ НА САЙТЕ
Какая страна, на Ваш взгляд, примет больше беженцев-черкесов из Сирии?
Российская Федерация
Соединенные Штаты Америки
Ни та, ни другая
СМС-помощь


Аслан Шаззо на сервере Стихи.ру


The deputy of the city council of Maykop Zaurbek Shu considers that according some substantive provisions the charter of the capital of Adygeya mismatches the 131st law “About local self-management”. He acted in that connection at the session, sent an inquiry to the Office of Public Prosecutor of the town, but neither the decision of his colleagues, nor the reply of the Office of Public Prosecutor were considered by him as lawful.

“Now it is possible to consider two variants, - he told in the conversation with “Caucasian unit” correspondent, - addressing to the court, or inquiry to the higher instance – the Office of Public Prosecutor of Adygeya Republic”.

The deputy sent his inquiry to the town Office of Public Prosecutor on July, 16th addressed to the head of that department of Andrey Fatin, the reply - signed by operating public prosecutor of the town A.A.Gerasimov - was received on August, 15th.

In the deputy’s opinion, the charter of the tow mismatches the federal law as regulations about of accountability and sub-control and two structures – the administration of the municipal formation and the control-revision committee - were not included in it. Meanwhile the powers of those institutions of the local government in the charter were fixed.

In the law it is directly specified, Shu explained, that by the charter of the municipal formation the accountability and sub-control of the institutions of the local government - without any exception - should be certain. Who and in what order supervises the bodies, the forms of reporting, their terms - all that should be precisely registered.

The deputy had no questions about the powers. Such powers were given as the separate institutions of the local government to the head of the municipal formation (the head of the administration), the administration, the Council of People's Deputies and the control-revision committee.

In occasion of the accountability and sub-control of the town administration the Office of Public Prosecutor of Maykop remarked that the head of the municipal formation in conformity with the specified law and the major of the town is the highest official of the municipality. He is allocated with own powers for resolution of the questions of local importance.

Simultaneously that official is the head of the administration of the municipal formation which he supervises. The head of the municipal formation is under control and accountable to the population and the Council of People's Deputies. And as the accountability and subcontrol of the head of the local self-management were established then ostensibly it is enough for the administration. Therefore, the Office of Public Prosecutor concluded, the charter corresponds to the law.

“That is, - the deputy commented, - the accountability and subcontrol of the administration is established as though by default. But in practice it is not fixed at all”. And as far as the powers of the administration are concretized, the deputy considers, there should be clearly stated the accountability and subcontrol.

“As even more unpersuasive the deputy considered the answer about the control-revision committee. “In the reply, - he told, - it was stated that it had been formed with a view of control over the execution of the budget and preparation of the project of the local budget. And that position of the control-revision committee gives the independent status which is distinct from the status of the other executive or representative bodies of the local authorities”.

The legislative body, it was spoken further in the reply, considers projects of the budget, approves them, as well as considers and approves the reports on execution of the budget. And the control-auditing body supervises the order of such consideration and approving, that is, as a matter of fact, supervises the work of the legislative body. The conclusion is done from that the control-revision committee cannot be under control of the Council of People's Deputies, as well as any other institutions of the local government.

“But in my address to the Office of Public Prosecutor, - the deputy emphasized, - I did not mention the question on which the control-revision committee should be under control to. It is the second stage. I wrote only that for today the accountability and subcontrol of the control-revision committee is absent”.

“And if theses that the control-revision committee has a special status, that the deputies, or any other institutions of the local government cannot supervise its work – are disputable, - the deputy added, - then another thing is undoubted: all the institutions of the local government should be under control. And the law precisely stipulates it”.

NatPress

Опубликовал administrator, 2-09-2008, 19:15. Просмотров: 1245
Другие новости по теме:
Litigation on Maykop’s gardening is under State Office of Public Prosecutor ...
Adygeya capital’s mayor could have 2nd first assistant?
Constitutional court of Adygeya not heeded reasons of head of Teuchezhsky d ...
Time mayor of Cherkessk about new town charter: no occasions for agiotage
In parties’ opinion project of Cherkessk new charter won’t do