Various forms of mismanagement of real property represent the most frequent accusations that local elected officials face in administrative cases. They account for nearly a third of all the administrative cases analyzed in a survey conducted by Viorel Pîrvan, expert with the NGO IDIS Viitorul.
The survey concludes that often there is no good apparent reason for the initiation of administrative proceedings, for example, when a mayor doesn’t inform councilpersons about correspondence received by the mayor’s office. It is unclear what the harm of such action done to public interest might be to justify administrative action.
The survey also remarks procedural errors in initiating administrative cases. Often officials are wrongly accused of negligence of nonfeasance in office. Also, sometimes administrative action is initiated by authorities that don’t have such jurisdiction under the Code of Administrative Offenses, or procedural papers are filled out incompletely.
Viorel Pîrvan also concludes that the provisions regulating the administrative penalty of barring someone from public office are vague and don’t clearly specify the situations when such action is warranted.
To avoid the situations where local elected officials are wrongly accused, Pîrvan argues it is necessary to correctly assess and prove the damage done to the public interest. Also, it is important to improve the capacities of the State Chancellery’s territorial offices in carrying out inspections.
