The United Civic Party has split Volterra in two for many reasons, but mainly for the strong need for transparency and sharing, and felt vindicated by time, those members that are based on the original project. At the beginning a significant proportion of people found it hard to understand why we were so important in the conduct of City team play and the clarity of methods and intentions. Over time, however, the deep reasons behind the discomfort that we experienced in the administration became more and more body and our thoughts are backed up by concrete examples, frankly worrying. Administer a town in full economic crisis is not easy and when deprived of the experience becomes vital game team, the full cooperation of the directors is in hiring decisions and in carrying out major projects. Because only the full cooperation of the group could compensate for the deficiencies of competence, sophistication and wit that in some cases be recognized in the individual. This was also the promise to the voters, but once you get to the leadership of the things have taken a different course. It is preferred to follow the path of centralization of decision and, perhaps even flattered by the suggestions of advisors interested and ambitious. Many important decisions were taken by very few in private home, only to be brought to the ratification group at the last moment, when challenge them would mean to create situations of crisis or failure itself. So it was for the 2010 budget and was still so for the last three-year plan of public works. Two important documents rather botched because of the use of these devices. By the same logic appointments to the Board of the Santa Chiara were completed by the mayor just before the debate in City Council, so that the meeting came after the fact. For example the more recent Memorandum of Understanding on the hospital of Volterra was brought to the attention of the majority group until mid-November, when had already been discussed several months ago with representatives of other governments and agencies. This way you do, in addition to being improper and was likely to be still due to large errors and problems. Is also a bad example for everyone, because it goes in search of a shortcut instead of deepening, rather forcing the agreement and, finally, demands restraint and transparency escapes. If this is the line from the top choice of City, it ends up becoming the method in which they might also meet the advisers and assessors less cautious or less circumspect. With the risk of incurring disturbing blunders. In this regard, we very much hope that prove to be quite unsubstantiated reports in the press in recent days for alderman Coast and its possible relationship with a company operating in the renewable energy sector. Would be an unpleasant episode in which, after the Bear case, no one really feels the need to attend.
original design Civic List
0 comments:
Post a Comment