Question 14822 — local authorities

Summary

Ms. Claire Marais-Beuil questions the Minister of Territorial Planning and Decentralization about the representation of the opposition in municipal commissions and the commissions of public establishments for intermunicipal cooperation (EPCI). The general code of local authorities (CGCT) specifies that, in municipalities with more than 1,000 inhabitants, the composition of the various commissions “must respect the principle of proportional representation to allow pluralistic expression of elected officials within the municipal assembly” (article L. 2121-22). The same applies to EPCIs, as also included in the CGCT: “Article L. 2121-22-1 applies to public intermunicipal cooperation establishments bringing together a population of 50,000 inhabitants or more” (article L. 5211-1). Elections in these commissions are carried out by list voting, the “election of substitutes in a number equal to that of the full members” is carried out (article L. 1411-5) in particular and on a regular basis concerning the commissions for calls for tenders and permanent public service delegation (as specified in article 22 of the public procurement code). The oppositions therefore have a right to a proportional share of all the seats created by the deliberations of the various councils. The Council State was able to speak on this subject to clarify that this rule aims to ensure the representation of the different political currents represented within the councils. However, communities freely interpret texts in order to undermine the rights of elected officials, with certain groups having no representative on certain commissions. For example, in the constituency of the Member of Parliament, in Beauvais, there is a majority group and two opposition groups. The municipal assembly is thus composed: 33 seats out of 45 for the majority group (having 73.33% of the seats), 9 seats out of 45 for the first opposition group (having 20% ​​of the seats), 3 seats out of 45 for the second opposition group (having 6.66% of the seats). Four commissions allowed the legitimate representation of the different opposition groups, yet the minority opposition group did not obtain no seat, neither as a full member nor as a substitute. The first deliberation concerned the election of administrators of the municipal social action center, 8 members appointed by the mayor (therefore members of the majority) and 8 elected members, therefore a total of 16 seats. If we apply the principle of proportional representation, the minority group should have had a seat but this was not the case. The second and third commissions concerned the tender commission and the permanent public service delegation commission. The CGCT and the public procurement code indicate that oppositions have the right to a representative. However, the minority opposition group has no representatives, which is contrary to the rights of elected officials. The last deliberation concerned the designation of the members of the Elispace operating council, composed of 6 full members and 6 alternates, therefore 12 members. Theoretically and in compliance with the calculation of proportionality with the requirement for representation of opposition groups: 12 x 0.733 = 8.796 therefore 9 seats for the majority, 12 x 0.2 = 2.4 therefore 2 seats for the first opposition group, 12 x 0.066 = 0.792 therefore 1 seat for the minority opposition group. Once again the minority group received no seats. Thus an opposition group has no representative among compulsory commissions (call for tenders and public service delegation) or commissions created by the town hall, contrary to the rights of elected officials. This is not for lack of candidatures which were presented in accordance with the internal regulations of the assembly. The fact that a group in an assembly has no seat and is not represented in any committee is an anomaly in our democracy and is contrary to fundamental right elected officials. This practice constitutes a perimeter lock since it creates working groups or steering committees which make participation in the debate impossible. There is also an information lock since the minority group does not have access to documents which do not necessarily concern the general commission. Consequently, she asks him to specify two elements: the calculation of representation of Should the opposition within committees take into account the election of incumbents and substitutes separately or should it take into account the entire list presented to the ballot including both incumbents and substitutes? Can the majority understand the opposition as an opposition bloc or should it consider opposition groups separately? She wants to know his position on the subject.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.