Information newsletter
Issue 1(13), January 2005

Request Experience: Is it a secret who spent the budget surplus of 2004?
by Anton Andonov, AIP

The Interest
“And let the thirsty who drink from this spring remember the craftsman who has built the faucet”, says a line on the tube of a public stone faucet at the Ludogorie region. The stone drinking tap has probably lasted from the time of collectivization. Similar messages are common in our country and date back to the Ottoman rule through the constructions for the celebration of the 1,300 anniversary of Bulgaria founding, to even later times. The names of the craftsmen had been carved for their own dignity. In 2004, after several years’ interruption, the tradition was revived by the implementation of the so-called small demonstration projects. Then signs, saying that the object was constructed by the government of the National Movement Simeon II, replaced the engravings with the names of the craftsmen. The signs, however, tentatively disappeared after a brief argument in the media since the projects were implemented with money from the budget surplus. Signs disappeared but questions remained. Who were the craftsmen of the drinking taps (of the schools, the playgrounds, the bus stops as well)? Who and on what criteria chose them, what amount of money was absorbed and by whom? The Regional Governor turned out to be responsible for the allocation of the subsidies. In the spirit of good practices, other regions in Bulgaria released reports on the implementation of the 2004 projects. A good example was the Sliven region, where detailed information on the government spending was published on the website of the Regional Governor. Led by journalistic curiosity, the correspondent of “Monitor” newspaper in Shumen, Krassimir Krumov, looked for the answers of these questions as well.

The Experience
“The Regional Governor of Shumen, Nora Chalukova, turned out to be shy in her contacts with the media. On words, however, she was open for dialogue. Thus, before resorting to the mechanisms provided by the Access to Public Information Act (APIA), I tried to get the information by classical means—by questions and answers on the phone. I asked the Regional Governor what was the number of the small demonstration projects in the territory of Shumen region, what was the procedure of selection, who were the winners, and what was the amount of money spent. The only specific answer was the number of the projects—99. The reference to their activities had not been prepared yet. Journalists, myself included, would be given access to them, though the advise of Ms. Chalukova’s lawyers was that she could not disclose the names of the implementers since they are secret. For information disclosure, the consent of each implementer was required,” Mr. Krumov said.

Urged to disentangle the interesting issue, Krassimir Krumov asked for assistance from the lawyers’ team of Access to Information Programme. On the advise of Alexander Kashumov, Krumov submitted a request for access to public information under the APIA on 5 January 2005.

On the day of the request submission, the Regional Governor unexpectedly took a sick leave. During her sickness, journalists from Shumen received e-mail from the local administration. The message, without being a direct reply, gave answers to the questions set in the submitted by Krassimir Krumov request at the beginning of January. The number of winning companies was mentioned—16—though their names were dropped again. At the same time, the implementation of the demonstration projects in the Shumen region raised the interest of the representatives of four political parties in the town. They also received a negative answer since the information about the implementers of the projects was classified as an official secret.

The Outcome?
On 24 January 2005, the correspondent of “Monitor” newspaper in Shumen received a registered letter containing the answer to his submitted under APIA request. The message stated that the Regional Administration was currently developing a web site where all of the information about the implementation of the demonstration projects in the Shumen region would be published. Mr. Krumov would be informed about the instigation of the site by the Regional Governor in person, the message continued.

“The reply of the Regional Governor is a mute refusal for me. The letter gives a promise, not the information I have been looking for,” Krumov said. “My interest with regard to the craftsmen of the public faucets is now bigger since my suspicions of corrupt behaviour in the selection process have been confirmed. Only a precise and detailed answer of the questions I have set forth would make further investigation of the case possible. The investigation would show whether the project contractors coincide with the sponsors of the National Movement Simeon II electoral campaign. It will also reveal whether the reported accounts for construction expenses are real or their value has been increased in order for some money to get into the party cash box,” the correspondent concluded.