BOOK CHAPTER (95-110)
The limiting the number of tenure in local government?
The historical and comparative outline of this issue
More details
Hide details
1 |
Wyższa Szkoła Gospodarki Euroregionalnej
im. Alcide De Gasperi w Józefowie |
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Adopted in 1990, the conception of numerically unlimited term of
office in the local governments, as it is used in other European countries,
has been given the normative and dogmatic basics. It is recognized as an
expression of the state of law, the decentralization of public administration and the empowerment of local communities. Twenty-five years of experience of self-government in Poland creates the need for reflection on
the evaluation of past reality and the projection of possible new normative
solutions. The limiting of term of office is used in a case of many state’s offices, in the EU’s administration and in the local government in some US
states. The limiting of term of office in local government was known in ancient Rome. No limit to the term of office of local governments may create
the local oligarchy, the groups of customers fighting for their own interests
rather than for the general public good. The phenomenon of nepotism
and use of public funds for their own interests is growing, including the
use of public funds for election campaigns. The use of legal instruments
or employees of local government to conduct the election campaign and
secure a subsidiary of the electorate, mainly dependent economically from the mayor can be noticed. Many of these negative phenomena is caused by
the lack of political maturity of the local community which should be justified by the Polish history, especially partitions, wars and the communist
regime. Therefore, the postulate for the introduction of the term of office
appears to be well founded.
REFERENCES (23)
1.
Carey, J.M. (1998). Term limits and legislative representation. Cambridge.
2.
Cassola, F., Labruna, L. (1978). Linee di una storia delle istituzioni repubblicane. Napoli.
3.
Hauser, R., Niewiadomski, Z. Samorząd gminny, komentarz do art. 26 ust. 2 ustawy o samorządzie gminnym. Legalis.
4.
Herc, G.: Chmaj, M. (red.). (2005).Ustrój samorządu terytorialnego w Polsce. Warszawa, s. 14-15.
5.
Korczak, J. (2014). Kadencyjność organów jednostek samorządu terytorialnego. Samorząd Terytorialny 7-8 s. 38-50.
6.
Kunkel, W. V., Wittmann, R. (1995). Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der Römischen Republik. München.
7.
Mousourakis, G. (2007). A Legal History of Rome, London and New York.
8.
Musioł-Urbańczyk, A. (2015). Metody wspomagające implementację strategii rozwoju jednostki samorządu terytorialnego. ZN PŚ. Seria:.
9.
Organizacja I Zarządzanie, z. 78, nr kol. 1928, s. 293-303.
10.
Sitek ,B. (2013). Legal-Comparative Aspects of the Local Self-Government Autonomy, [w:] Teoria a prax verejnej sprawy. Koscice, s. 202-214.
11.
Sitek, B. (2008). Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae seu Ursonensis i lex Irnitana. Ustawy municypalne antycznego Rzymu. Tekst, tłumaczenie i komentarz. Olsztyn.
12.
Sitek, B.: Jurewicz, A. i inni (red.). (2011). Rzymskie prawo publiczne. Wybrane zagadnienia. Olsztyn.
13.
Staderini, F. (2009), Diritto degli enti locali, Padova. s. 148 n.
14.
Verpeaux, M. (2005). Droit des collectivités territoriales. Paris, s. 178 n.
15.
Wilson, D., Chris, G. (2011). Local government in the United Kingdom. New York.
16.
Zabłocki, J., Tarwacka, A. (2011). Publiczne prawo rzymskie. Warszawa.
21.
Widera Z., Kadencyjność funkcji prezydenta miasta/burmistrza/wójta gminy w poglądach elektoratu partii politycznych, Preferencje Polityczne. Postawy-Identyfikacje-Zachowania 7(2013), s. 69-80.