The Parliament of Moldova in 2011 held 58 ordinary sittings of the planned 86. Thus, it failed to call 32% of the sittings. The data are contained in a monitoring report on the legislative body’s work compiled by the Association for Participatory Democracy (ADEPT), Info-Prim Neo reports. ADEPT executive director Igor Botan told a news conference that many sittings in April-May could not be held as a part of the lawmakers became involved in the local elections and campaigned for their candidates. “The issue was discussed a lot then. Why should the local elections affect the work of the legislature? Why didn’t they go to the voters on the weekend?” asked Igor Botan. In September, the legislative body held practically no sitting as the Palace of the Republic, where the meetings take place, was rented by a businessman for his wedding. “Afterward, the lawmakers took a break to reach a decision as regards the election of the President, but they could not even register a candidate for the presidency,” stated Igor Botan. According to the monitoring report, only 4% of the legal documents examined and adopted by Parliament in 2011 represented policies. Program director Elena Prohnitski said the absolute majority of the adopted documents either amended other documents or resolved minor, private problems. As to the work of the parliamentary groups, ADEPT said the fact that no legislative initiative fielded by the Communists was accepted points to the parliamentary majority’s tendentiousness as the opposition’s opinion was neglected. “On the other hand, the Communist MPs submitted a low number of legislative initiatives even if they represent the largest group in Parliament and have the necessary experience,” stated Elena Prohnitski. The monitoring showed that the main role of the legislative body – the parliamentary control – is performed inefficiently as it controls neither the executive, nor the independent institutions that are under parliamentary control. Last year the legislature adopted acts whose constitutionality was questionable and neglected the Constitutional Court’s decisions. Only one of the six decisions was implemented.