Topical Information

Future amendments to the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act (LSGLAA) should be developed within the framework of a comprehensive vision for the future of local self-government and the decentralisation process, rather than through isolated legislative amendments. This position was presented by Dr Emil Kabaivanov, Mayor of Karlovo Municipality and member of the NAMRB Managing Board, during a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Policy, Public Works and Local Self-Government, which rejected at first reading the draft law amending the Act.

NAMRB was also represented at the meeting by Daniela Ushatova, Head of the Local Policies and Finance Team, and Plamen Petrov, Legal Adviser to the Association.

The draft legislation envisaged expanding the powers of mayors of mayoralties and city districts, providing them with greater opportunities to participate in decision-making processes, and increasing the financial autonomy of mayoralties. According to its proponents, the amendments were intended to strengthen local self-government at the settlement level.

Presenting NAMRB’s position, Dr Kabaivanov emphasised that the Association’s negative opinion was not directed against the objective of strengthening the role of mayors of mayoralties, but rather against the approach of amending individual provisions of the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act outside the broader concept for the development of local self-government.

“Our opinion is negative, but not because the draft law was introduced by the National Association of Mayors of Mayoralties. In our view, the decentralisation process, which began some twenty years ago, has not yet been completed,” he stated.

According to Dr Kabaivanov, numerous issues concerning the distribution of powers among the different bodies of local self-government have accumulated over the years and cannot be resolved through separate legislative amendments. In his view, agreement should first be reached on the overall direction of the reform, after which specific amendments to the legislation should be prepared.

He stressed that NAMRB has already developed its own proposals for improving the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act, based on the practical experience of Bulgarian municipalities. He expressed the Association’s readiness to engage in accelerated discussions with the National Assembly, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, and the Council of Ministers so that future legislative solutions are prepared following a broad professional debate and ensure a sustainable balance among all bodies of local self-government.

The Mayor of Karlovo further noted that municipal councils, municipal mayors and mayors of mayoralties are all part of one system, and that any change in the powers of one of these bodies inevitably affects the work of the others. For this reason, he argued, the Act should be considered in its entirety.

In this context, Dr Kabaivanov announced that the NAMRB Managing Board will invite the Managing Board of the National Association of Mayors of Mayoralties to hold a joint meeting in September. The aim is to discuss both the proposals of the mayors of mayoralties and NAMRB’s own ideas for improving the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act before any further legislative initiatives are undertaken.

According to Dr Kabaivanov, such an approach—based on professional dialogue and consensus-building between the organisations representing local authorities—is the best way to identify workable solutions that both strengthen the role of mayors of mayoralties and preserve the balance within the local self-government system.

NAMRB’s position also received support during the parliamentary debate. Maria Stoycheva, Chair of the Municipal Council of Teteven and member of the leadership of the National Association of Chairpersons of Municipal Councils in the Republic of Bulgaria, stated that the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act indeed requires amendments, but these should be considered as part of a comprehensive reform rather than through isolated changes.

According to her, successful decentralisation requires effective cooperation between municipal councils, municipal mayors and mayors of mayoralties, as all of them serve the interests of the same local community. Legislative solutions, she stressed, should create conditions for partnership between the different bodies of local self-government rather than foster confrontation or unequal treatment of individual settlements.

A similar position was expressed by Polya Zaneva-Dimitrova, Deputy Minister of Regional Development and Public Works, who presented the Ministry’s negative opinion on the draft law. She underlined that, under the Constitution, the municipal council is the body of local self-government, while the mayor is the executive authority at municipal level. Therefore, any changes to the functions and powers of local self-government bodies should be preceded by a thorough analysis, an impact assessment and broad public consensus.

Member of Parliament Milena Nedeva, former Mayor of Kaspichan Municipality, also stressed the need for careful consideration of the proposed amendments. She pointed out that many of the proposed provisions duplicate mechanisms that already exist in the current legislation and noted that mayors of mayoralties already have opportunities to participate actively in municipal council meetings, submit proposals and defend the interests of their settlements. In her view, any necessary amendments should be examined within the framework of a comprehensive review of the Act rather than through individual legislative changes.

During the discussion, Dr Emil Kabaivanov reiterated that the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act should be regarded as a single, coherent legislative framework, with any amendments guided by a common vision for the future development of local self-government.

According to him, the arguments presented during the meeting—both in support of and in opposition to the draft law—once again demonstrated that individual proposals cannot be assessed outside the broader context of the decentralisation process.

“Adopting isolated amendments outside the overall framework of the reform risks creating divisions between the main bodies of local self-government instead of improving the system. We cannot speak of effective decentralisation if separate legislative decisions set mayors of mayoralties, municipal mayors and municipal councils against one another. That is unacceptable,” Dr Kabaivanov warned.

He further stressed that the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act should provide a sustainable model for relations between the different local authorities rather than become an instrument for solving individual problems without assessing the consequences for the system as a whole.

“Before introducing such a draft law, it would have been appropriate to seek a meeting with the Managing Boards of both the National Association of Municipalities and the National Association of Chairpersons of Municipal Councils,” he said, adding that such an approach would have allowed the practical implications of the proposed amendments to be discussed at an early stage and problematic provisions to be avoided.

In conclusion, Dr Kabaivanov called for the decentralisation process to continue through active partnership between the legislative and executive branches and the organisations representing local self-government.

“Let us move forward together towards decentralisation—wisely and comprehensively, not piece by piece,” he said.

For their part, representatives of the National Association of Mayors of Mayoralties defended the draft law, arguing that the proposed amendments would provide clearer guarantees for the participation of mayors of mayoralties in decision-making processes, strengthen their ability to represent the interests of local communities, and create better conditions for the financial autonomy of settlements. In their view, the draft law represents another step in advancing the decentralisation process.

The issue had already been discussed during a joint working meeting between NAMRB and the National Association of Mayors of Mayoralties held in February, where practical issues in the relations between municipalities and mayoralties, as well as possible solutions, were examined.

During the parliamentary debate, however, a number of additional concerns were raised, highlighting the need to consider the proposals within a broader context. Members of Parliament drew attention to their potential impact on municipal budgets, the differing administrative capacities of mayoralties, the need for a clear division of responsibilities between the various local self-government bodies, and the risk of institutional conflicts. Questions were also raised regarding the possible duplication of existing powers and mechanisms already provided for in the current legislation.

Following the debate, the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Policy, Public Works and Local Self-Government did not approve the draft law at first reading.