The Communist government will not adopt the new law on the status of Chisinau for political reasons. Info-prim Neo interview with the director of the Business Consulting Institute, Mihai Roscovan, former municipal councillor

[ - The central authorities worked out a new bill on the status of the municipality of Chisinau. Why was it necessary?] We have long expected for the law on the status of the municipality of Chisinau to be adopted. I participated in a public debate on this bill last May, at the height of the election campaign. Vladimir Ciobanu, the chairman of the parliamentary commission for local administration and territorial development, promised then that the bill would be presented for consideration without delay. The Communist government was probably still hoping to win the elections in the capital city. After a crushing defeat in Chisinau, the Communists changed the tactics. As far as I know, the bill was not included on the agenda of the Parliament either. Four former candidates for mayor general are now members of the Parliament and I heard none of them to raise this question. The non-adoption of this law created a contradictory legal framework, especially after the passing of the Law on the Local Public Administration at the end of 2006. The main discrepancies between this law and the present law on the status of Chisinau are the institution of the post of chairman of the Chisinau Municipal Council (CMC) and the way of reorganising the municipal administrative apparatus. The present law on the status of the capital city does not envisage the existence of the post of CMC chairman. But the new version of the law clearly stipulates what the functions of the chairman and secretary of the Council are. It also introduces a new post, which I think is necessary – of secretary of the City Hall. The new law strengthens the position of the mayor general in a way, defines the functions and responsibilities of the Council and of the executive administration. For these reasons, the Communist government does not give the green light, forcing the municipal administration to violate the legislation. Another cause for the non-adoption of the law, to my mind, is the situation in the districts of the municipality. The Communists have not yet decided whether they want the districts of the town to be headed by people elected by the population or by the mayor general, as it is done at present. The present Law on the Local Public Administration envisages the creation of local administration districts of first level from 2011. The draft law on the status of the capital city defines the districts as subdivisions of the municipal administration subordinated to the mayor general. After losing the elections in all the districts of Chisinau, the Communists began to worry. As they do not have personalities for candidates, the chances of winning the elections in the districts will diminish. That’s why the present situation is more suitable for them. Moreover, the representatives of the Communist Party are not in favour of decentralisation. I am against the creation of district councils and election of district heads and said this not only once. Last year, I took part in a joint study regarding the financing of capital cities in South Eastern Europe. No capital with parameters like Chisinau had autonomous districts. This division is not justified from economic and social viewpoints. The districts differ essentially by the number of people and by the productive potential. The shift to independent districts can take place only after delimitating new districts with more homogeneous economic and social potential. It is necessary to decentralise the functions, especially from the central level to the local one, by providing the necessary financial resources. The Communists do not adopt the law on the local public finances because they are afraid of losing control over the territories. That’s why the creation of districts under the present law is aimed at restoring the Soviet division and administration system in order to strengthen the Government’s influence on the local decision making. [- Can you describe the activity of the present municipal administration in the current legal conditions?] The Chisinau administration started to work properly at the end of the previous year or six months after the elections. This is an acceptable period for a new administration, but it could happen sooner. In general, Dorin Chirtoaca managed to take over the administration and to keep under control the main activities of the municipality. Yet, the intentions of the mayor general and of the team of Liberal councillors are not yet clear. Also, the mayor seems to have distrust in the administration he heads. I think he should pay more attention to the development problems, attraction of investments to Chisinau. He is the appropriate man for this in the appropriate place. There have always been current problems and they can be also solved by deputy mayors. It is time to launch projects that will bring the changes expected by the voters. At the same time, the activity of the councillors leaves much to be desired. For the first time during the independence period, the anti-Communist forces have a comfortable majority in the City Council. But they did not use this advantage and committed many mistakes. The formation of fragile alliances, the excessive interference of party leaders in the local affairs, sterile public debates and the fear to assume responsibility and cancel the incorrect decisions of the previous Council showed the weaknesses of the councillors. The fact that one of the most professional and experimented councillors, Pavel Caba, was not elected as chairman of the commission for constructions, architecture and land-related problems shows that the majority group in the Council is confronted by serious divergences. As we are in a pre-electoral year, these divergences will expand. As in the previous period, the Council deals with ordinary problems like the allocation of resources, sharing of posts and goods and others. But it does not make strategic decisions designed to produce visible results and improvements in the capital city. [- What do you think about mayor’s intention to create a project formulation centre for attracting finances from donors?] The administration should focus on the General Urbanity Plan that contains over 50 programmes and more than 160 projects. They say these projects cannot be implemented because there is no money. The money is never enough. I consider that the main problem is that the municipal administration does not have institutional and human capacities to work out and implement projects. So, it is very important to improve these capacities and even to set up a special subdivision. I offered to provide assistance in this field to a project of the Soros Foundation. I hope the municipal authorities will be open and cooperative. [ - What project could the municipality implement immediately?] The administration has projects with all the documentation in place that can be implemented. I refer first of all to the organisation of the urban public transport. The strategy was approved in 2006, but has not yet started to be implemented. This project envisages the restructuring of the municipal enterprises, reorganisation of the transport division and attraction of private investments for improving the transport services. I do not understand why, owing to incompetence or unwillingness, the officials in charge do nothing in the area. I also think that the public-private partnership can contribute to initiating and implementing projects to build parking lots, including multi-storey car parks. The City Hall must only identify the places and organise public tender contests. There are also such projects as the construction of social housing, the development of technological parks and others. The municipal administration must make organisational effort rather than financial one in these projects.