"Promote me, promote me!"

Elections in the Rostov region are gradually entering the “finish line” stage. It would seem that none of the candidates is tempted by the prospect of dropping out of the election race at the last stage, but some of the candidates not only do not think about the ethics and legality of the “election campaign”, but also flout it in every possible way.

With a similar example, today Mrs. Pavlyuchenko E.G., a candidate for the head of the Kuleshovsky rural settlement from the United Russia party, appeared in the court of the Azov district. It is interesting that despite the seriousness of the claims against her, Elena Gennadievna came to the court hearing without a lawyer, apparently relying on “support from above,” which she repeatedly declared at meetings of voters. And while Judge Manaeva was trying to understand the circumstances of the far-from-ambiguous case, Elena Gennadievna listened to the witnesses with a smile and calmly answered questions.

The deputy chairman of the Azov TEC, together with the commission, also did not see any violations in the actions of the candidate. However, despite the statement of the official representative of the TEC at the court hearing, some of her colleagues, members of the Azov TEC with voting rights, stated that they did not agree with the commission’s decision on the legality of candidate Pavlyuchenko’s actions.

And it all happened like this:

In fact, candidate Pavlyuchenko at one time served as the head of the Kuleshovsky rural settlement. And at present, he is an active deputy, which naturally implies not only responsibilities, but also certain bonuses. For example, gathering social workers during working hours, or going to parent-teacher meetings at local schools.

Actually, it was at such events that good people watching the election race in the Kuleshovsky rural settlement noticed a violation of election legislation, which consisted of direct bribery of voters. And they didn’t just notice, but made several video and audio recordings, which were presented to the court as evidence.

The key turn of the proceedings can be considered the following phrase uttered by Elena Gennadievna at one of the meetings: “If you choose me, I promise that all 25 houses will be renovated within five years!” - and everything would have been fine if not for Mrs. Pavlyuchenko’s intention to create a young and strong “Kuleshov Management Company” on the basis of the dying Kuleshov housing and communal services.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that during the meeting, Mrs. Pavlyuchenko was asked several times the question: “Who will be the founder of the management company?” There was no clear answer to this question. But we managed to find out that the management company will be commercial... private... interesting, isn’t it? The next point that is worth dwelling on is a simple and immutable truth - the head of a rural settlement does not have the tools to legally carry out the repair of these notorious houses, he cannot regulate it.

Based on all of the above, a legitimate and reasonable question arises: at whose expense is Mrs. Pavyuchenko going to fulfill her promise, and are such statements not a direct bribery of voters? But...judging is the prerogative of the court, a decision has not yet been made, although it is the lot of narrow-minded people to think that this decision will not be in favor of candidate Pavlyuchenko.

Against the background of such promises, everything else seems trivial. A promise to negotiate with the market director about holding fairs on the day of the Timiryazevsky village, to buy food for the table, etc.

Result:

Watching the video recordings from the events, what is also striking is that dear Elena Gennadievna, everywhere and everywhere, uses the pronoun “WE”, constantly emphasizing her connection with the administration of the settlement. It was “THEY” who built the road at the entrance to one of the blocks, it was “THEY” who took out a loan of 15 million in order to pay off AKDP’s debts to the housing and communal services, it was “THEY” who were planning children’s playgrounds... the list is endless.

At the time of writing this opus, the decision of the Azov District Court is still unknown, but there are no illusions on this score. I would like to wish Elena Gennadievna success, good luck and competent lawyers in order to avoid the mistakes she made.

And finally, I would like to quote two quotes from Mrs. Pavlyuchenko:

1 Answer to Judge Manaeva’s question about promises: “I haven’t bought anything for anyone, and I won’t do anything in the future!”

2. Reaction to the presence of media representatives at the court hearing: “PR for me, PR!”

Isn't it cute?