Gentlemen deputy

The impeachment procedure of Yuri Shmatova has begun. The “lubricant” is the apartment question, personnel, broken glasses and a drunken budget

On the evening of June 3, on the last day established by the Parliamentary Regulations, a group of deputies was made to the office of the Pskov Regional Assembly with a proposal to dismiss Yuri Shmatov, dismissal of the chairman of the assembly.

On May 27, 2004, at the 28th session of the regional assembly, the majority (19) deputies of the regional assembly voted to amend the regulations of the meeting, according to which the chairman, like other liberated employees of the regional parliament, can be ahead of schedule from the post by a simple majority of votes from the list of deputies, that is, 17 votes.

Exactly a week later, 15 deputies, including deputy chairman of the meeting of Mikhail Gavunas and Valentina Kalensky, as well as the formal head of the United Russia deputy group, Viktor Antonov, introduced the expected “personal” issue to the agenda.

Bear resentment

It is significant that on the same day, June 3, giving a commentary on the Pskov News Tape, Viktor Antonov, as if not knowing the document signed by him, said: “The question of the possible replacement of the chairman of the Pskov Regional Assembly is considered by the United Russia deputy group. However, what session this issue will be raised and what candidacy will be put forward, we have not yet decided. So far, it is impossible to talk about a specific candidate, since there are a lot of applicants for the place of the speaker of the regional assembly. ”

The next day, June 4, in an interview with the same “PLN”, the vice speaker and deputy on the list of regional “unity” Valentin Kalensky also did not say a word about the statement of 15, but gave his fairly frank version of the motives of the actions of the opponents of Yuri Shmatov: “The possible change of chairman of the Pskov regional meeting of deputies is related to the relations that developed between the chairman and deputy group of United Russia. The question is not whether the current chairman Yuri Shmatov copes with his duties, the whole thing is in the relations that have developed between him and the deputies of the EP. In his public statements, Shmatov has repeatedly spoke about the United Russia party and in the deputy group not in the most flattering way. So there are claims not only for political views, ”Valentin Kalensky admitted. - “On June 9, at the upcoming meeting of the Presidium of the regional branch of EP, the issue of the activities of the deputy group will be considered, and, therefore, the question will arise about relations with the chairman. If a party decision is made, then perhaps the deputy group will issue the issue of changing the chairman at the next session of the regional assembly. And already who will be appointed instead of is the second question. Believe me, a good half of 32 deputies of the meeting has enough political ambitions and experience to nominate their candidacy for the post of chairman. Mikhail Gavunas is not the only one. ”

These comments cannot be random and we will return to their content.

It is known that before signing the text of the application, Mikhail Gavunas personally suggested that Yuri Shmatov are submitted to the voluntary resignation, motivating this with the “meaningless resistance”. Shmatov refused, after which the aforementioned statement was received in the office.

Dear shots

The deputies that signed the statement argue that “according to the results of the activities of the chairman of the Pskov Regional Assembly of Deputies, Shmatov Yu. A. There are grounds for relieving him from the post of head of the legislative (representative) body of the region”.

Further on almost three pages, claims to Yu. Shmatov in connection with the unlawful, according to the applicants, hiring employees without holding a competition and providing the regional assembly of housing to some districts of the districts Viktor Sinitsin and Mikhail Zenkov), as well as elected (at the time of the provision of housing) deputies of the assembly (Alexander Alexander at the time of the provision of housing) are described in detail. Bukashkin, Zinaida Kravchenko, Vladimir Lezhnin and Viktor Fedorov). All episodes relate to the period until 2000 inclusive.

Correspondence on the “apartment issue” has dozens of sheets of documents that were quietly lying in the archive of the meeting for several years, and, apparently, nobody particularly worried anyone, as well as dozens of years for employees working in the public service, has not yet come “hour x”.

Recall the readers that all of the above circumstances became the subject of public discussion immediately after the statements signed by Yurim Shmatov, Igor Savitsky, Boris Polozov and Sergey Gogolev in the name of the heads of law enforcement and control bodies of Russia with a demand to check the expenditure of the targets of the state budget of the Pskov region, including the target support of alcohol production producers, the State Unitary Enterprise Pskolko and CJSC Pskovpishcheprom 1.

It is impossible not to notice that without the participation of the employees of the assembly apparatus themselves, it would be difficult to draw up a “apartment-frame doss”.

Bold and non -angidized

Obviously, feeling a significant temporary failure in the document, the authors set their goal to show a more substantial and “fresh” inconsistency of Yuri Shmatov.

The applicants are blamed for him to blame the poor “organization of the apparatus”, as a result of which Yuri Shmatov himself made a mistake in the first elaborate vote on a change in the regulation of the meeting regarding the re -election of the chairman.

Moreover, it turns out that “with the connivance of the chairman, the skirmish and mutual insults between the deputies became possible.” The episode is given as visual illustrations when deputy Sergei Gogolev “accused the deputies present in the hall of cowardice and engagement”, as well as the plot, who received all -Russian fame, when the deputy chairman of the meeting, Alexander Khristoforov threw a glass in journalist Vadim Guzinin2. For some reason, the signatures did not mention the name of their colleagues Mr. Khristoforov, in their version the situation looked like this: “With the connivance of the chairman, an incident occurred, which was provoked by journalist Guzinin V.M., who went through the presidium to the hall during the session, moved freely between the tables of deputies and interfered with the work of the session.” About the broken glass and the glass of the glass - not a word. Obviously, the colleagues in the assembly did not dare to dispose of the responsibility for the intra -parliamentary activity of Alexander Nikolayevich in the importance of the moment of the moment.

Recall that to penetrate the meetings of the meeting (he is the assembly hall of the regional administration) through the scene with the Presidium, the journalists invited to cover the session after the media committee and the regime service of the regional administration refused to pass through the usual entrance to representatives of several publications (including ours). Obviously, 15 deputies do not know anything about this.

Uncontrolled and ownerless

The crown of arguments became accusations against Yuri Shmatov that the regional meeting under his leadership does not perform the functions of monitoring the budget of the region assigned to him and by order of state property of the region.

According to the applicants, if these functions were performed, then a group of deputies, led by Yuri Shmatov, would not have been required to contact the federal authorities, which resulted in, as it was written in the statement, “an unacceptable scandal, which suffered the significance of the entire deputy corps”.

At the same time, it was noted that “the questions raised in a statement signed by a group of deputies, including Yu. A. Shmatov, were repeatedly verified by all competent law enforcement agencies, and all reports on the execution of the regional budget were approved at the meeting sessions.”

The application states that “in the course of the deputy hearings on the issue of budgetary support in 2003, it was established that the norms provided for by the law of the region“ On measures of state support of enterprises producing alcohol products ”made it possible to increase the receipts of excise taxes in all levels of the budget system, it was noted to maintain state support of enterprises that produce alcoholral alcohol Products ". As noted in the statement, “in the recommendations on the named issue adopted by most deputies who took part in the hearings, it was concluded about the timeliness of the above law, about the presence of a positive financial result.”

According to the unequivocal opinion of the applicants, “by signing this appeal, Yu. A. Shmatov signed in his own inability to be the head of the body entitled to control ... This allows us to conclude that this appeal was initiated by deputies pursuing economic and political goals.” And further - “Therefore, the chairman of the Pskov Regional Assembly, Yu. A. Shmatov, participating in a dispute of an economic nature and demonstrating political engagement, discredited itself as the head of the legislative body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.”

It is at this moment that the third -party reader of the application is asking a logical question: what are they talking about? And he immediately understands what it really is.

The emotions of the authors of the statement after the scandalous session, apparently, did not cool at all, and as a result the text turned into a set of arguments and facts of completely different levels and composition, as they say, “to a heap”.

According to 15 deputies, the meeting is poorly preparing questions for sessions-of course, due to the fault of the chairman.

But, in any case, the authors admit that they possess a majority vote in the meeting, which, obviously, in their understanding, is a synonym for truth and legality.

Party and activist

It is difficult to assume that the activities of the chairman torn apart by the contradictions of the regional legislative assembly can be impeccable - both politically and technically. But it is one thing when benevolent associates and assistants and quite another, when direct political competitors are engaged in the actions of the veteran of the political scene.

The deputies who signed the statement do not hide that they do not insist on correcting any mistakes and do not intend to bear their part of responsibility for the situation in the meeting, they clearly formulated a completely different goal-the early resignation of Yuri Shmatov from the post held. No matter how you evaluate the above “texture”, this task cannot be recognized completely political, regardless of the content of the application.

In the end, the prosecutor’s office has not yet answered anything about the “apartment and personnel” troubles in the meeting. And making final political conclusions would be much easier on the basis of prosecutorial or judicial materials.

But the applicants are in a hurry, they are in a hurry.

Almost all 3 are known to the place of the chairman of the meeting Mikhail Gavunas in the political environment of the Pskov region.

At the same time, it is not difficult to see that the real political responsibility for such a development of events will not be carried by Mikhail Gavunas - political ambitions are not punishable - but successfully adapted to him as an instrument of the political ram of United Russia, read the Pskov regional branch of the United Russia party. It seems that the party was offended by Yuri Shmatov for unpleasant statements, which Valentin Kalensky was talking about without hiding. But if you imagine that this may be a sufficient reason for a systemic personal decision, then it is necessary to declare the forbidden public policy as such.

It is easy to calculate the consequences of a possible personnel coup in the regional parliament. It is extremely difficult to imagine that it will lead to the “stabilization of the situation” and the “consolidation of efforts” in the already politically unstable region.

The political rates and insurance of United Russia, which has not yet been determined by its candidacy in the approaching elections of the governor, and the newly acquired active member of the party Mikhail Gavunas became a noticeable contradiction. The nervous intrigue of the conflict around the Pskov Governor's Governors of 2004 “pulled” the “shift of tectonic layers” in the regional assembly of deputies, which was not part of the “Party of Power”.

Having hitherto peaceful and overgrown with grass, the “Spare Training Field” of the Legislative Assembly suddenly became the main political scene of the moment, and, except for Mikhail Gavunas himself, almost no one was ready for such a development of events.

The upcoming June 24 session of the regional assembly promises to be one of the most intense and significant in its political consequences for the entire period of the regional parliament of the third convocation.

With any result.

Konstantin Minaev.

1 See Details: "I'm going to you!" and A. Mashkarin. “Explicit and secret” // “PG”, No. 19 (189), May 26, 2004

2 See Details: A. Mashkarin. Signal flags // "PG", No. 20 (190), June 2, 2004

3 See details: M. Andreev, A. Mashkarin, API “Navigator”. Spring call / "PG", No. 6 (176) of February 18, 2004; API "Navigator". Related to one shadow / "PG", 2004, No. 14 (184) of April 14, 2004