Certainly!
The essentials were already known after the presentation of the 2012 administrative account, which had been unveiled a few days earlier. But, despite everything, the last session of the Metropolitan Council before the summer break managed to turn into a marathon of “words” that lasted almost an entire day!
Who is to blame? Certainly, a regulation that prioritizes formality over efficiency, but if everyone, including the president himself, adopted a more sober style, the debates would certainly benefit from it! Besides, not all the arguments discussed deserved the oratory flair of a new Cicero…
As expected, it was still the administrative account that aroused the interest of the audience. The opposition contested the validity of the clear and concise illustration (both going hand in hand) by the President of the Finance Commission, Philippe Pradal. In this technical debate, one might think that numbers are numbers and that two plus two necessarily makes four. In fact, it was the fetish number of the debt that attracted all the attention, even though, as should be known, it is only a marginal indicator.
With a certain boldness, one could even say that the debt can be a sign of good health because it means that the debtor enjoys the full confidence of the creditors, who believe in its full capacity to repay (which is the main factor of any financial relationship between two parties).
Wouldn’t it have been better to focus the analysis on the quality of the expenses, their relevance, and their objectives?
However, the more than understandable desire of the opposition to oppose (after all, what other role should it have?) and therefore to look for negative ratios (and if not found, to create them) provided, as a flipside, justification for the president of the Metropolis in lyrical flights and anti-government sermons that do indeed have relevance, except perhaps for the fact that they mix local issues with other problems and references that are obviously more national or even international. What is the point of comparing the alleged good financial management of the Metropolis with the situation in Greece?
In short, the majority’s faction did not fail to unanimously vote for the approval of the administrative account, leaving the opposition with only the meager satisfaction of voting against it!
For the rest, it was just routine with deliberations that, with a more modern regulation, should be handled in committee.
What is the use of dealing with the 11 PLUs of various municipalities in plenary sessions, with discussions between a frequently ill-informed opposition representative and the mayor of the concerned municipality in the absence of any interest from the assembly?
And what about the verbal attack bordering on aggression from the mayor of Beaulieu, Mr. Roux, towards Patrick Allemand, and his response concerning a question that was not on the agenda but had recently opposed the two elected officials in court?
Finally, a distressing session to the point that many elected officials (perhaps with a premonitory reflex?), took the lead, making phone calls, sending texts, or working on their computers in complete tranquility.
The golden palm in this matter? It is awarded to the official who, upon arrival, started working on his computer and after finishing (considering the scope of the task, one imagines he was somewhat late with his correspondence!), got up, and left, not without having greeted a few colleagues with a smile.
What one might call active participation, right?
