SABOTAGE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY?
Finally, the government authorized Minister Donchev to generate, together with the civil sector, a strategy for the development of this sector and a mechanism for financing NGOs in Bulgaria. More information can be found here.
Although unaffected by the documents produced, the “God-anointed” (organizations with national representation status and eligible for legal subsidy) have decided to boycott the process through an opinion that can only cast doubt on the quality and competence of their “think tank”. To dispel these doubts, we expect them to respond to our following statement:
Ladies and Gentlemen from nationally represented organizations of and for people with disabilities,
In connection with the opinion submitted by you to the Minister of Management of EU Funds, Tomislav Donchev, on “Projects of a Strategy for Supporting the Development of Civic Organizations in Bulgaria for the Period 2012-2015” and “A Vision for Creating a Civil Financing Mechanism sector “, submitted for public consultation, we invite you to submit the following documents to the public, including people with disabilities in Bulgaria, by 20.07.2012 (generously giving you three weeks!):
- A decision of a state body to determine the status of “third social partner” of nationally represented organizations of and for persons with disabilities. The provision of Art. 5, para. 2 assigns to the nationally represented organizations of and for persons with disabilities an advisory role, but not the status of social partner within the meaning of the Definition of the term social partners and the meaning mentioned in the Labor Code, Chapter One – General, Tripartite Cooperation, Art. 3, para. (1);
- List of the other 44 regulations in which you state that this statute is regulated.
Finally, we would like to make it clear to the general public that the principle of financing any NGO cannot be comparable to that of political parties. For reference: POLITICAL PARTIES LAW, Chapter Three, PROPERTY, FINANCING AND EXPENDITURE, Art. 25, para. (1); Art. 26.
You can read the opinion here: