Municipal authorities of St. Petersburg. Head of Administration Writes Prizes to himself. Hidden Tendency And Corruption?

As it became known from reliable sources, the head of the local administration of the municipal formation of the municipal district of Vasilievsky (St. Petersburg, Vasileostrovsky district) Lyapakina S.V. Does not wish to comply with the decisions of the Council of Defense Ministry Vasilievsky and fulfill the lawful requirements of the Head of the Municipality.

By the way, Lyapakina Svetlana Vladimirovna ended the contract for the fulfillment of the powers of the Head of the local administration back in 2009, and taking advantage of the current situation with the change of the head of the Ministry of Defense, who left for personal reasons, she without prolonged compulsory competitive procedures, extended her powers to the present time, in Circumvention of art. 131 RF. This fact is established by the prosecutor's office, but how much is it legally ?. ...

The result of this self-will was the fact that Lyapakina S.V. For a long time she herself wrote out premiums and allowances. To date, there are undeniable facts of corruption and abuse of office by the head of the local administration Lyapakina S.V. When calculating premiums, allowances and material assistance to other municipal employees, as well as payment of monetary rewards to persons who do not work in the municipality and municipal institution.

I quote the OEB and KP of the Vasileostrovsky district of St. Petersburg: "At present, the facts of obtaining Lyapakina S.V. Premiums, leave allowances are partially established. Within the scope of the audit of the KUPSP, the validity of the accrual of the above premiums and mark-ups is checked. "

After assuming office, the new head of the MoD revealed these facts and was forced to bring this information to the deputy corps, which caused extreme bewilderment and condemnation, as well as appealed to the law enforcement agencies, where currently the investigation and investigation on the qualifications of these offenses are conducted, and In the near future, they will be given an appropriate assessment. According to the information we have, there are facts and more gross financial violations related to the expenditure of budgetary funds.

In particular, the situation began to unfold after the next meeting of the council deputies decided to introduce the position of a lawyer on a permanent basis in the municipal council. It was this decision that Lyapakina S.V. tried to protest. She filed a decision to the municipal council on the introduction of a new staff member "lawyer", and asked the court to recognize the court's decision as illegal, referring to not being able to do so. We violate Article 83 of the Budget Code. The court found it impossible to satisfy her claim, because she found no violation in the decision of the council. Lyapakina S.V. The suit withdrew.

A reasonable question arises: why? Under the existing legislation, and in fact, the head of the MO is the employer, and the head of the local administration is the executive and administrative body, the manager, the administrator. Logically, the question arises: if the manager refuses to execute the manager's orders, does not provide the necessary documents, deceives the deputy corps with legal casuistry, but does not want to see a lawyer in the municipal council. What is it? After all, the presence of a lawyer in any municipality is, rather, a mandatory position? Or she did not want the residents of the Okrug and St. Petersburg to find out that she was simply putting her money in the pocket of money paid by honest taxpayers? Since the confirmation is the official conclusion of the PCB on the illegal charging of allowances.

Not to mention the fact that the budget of 2012 was practically overrun, and there were distinct answers - and reports on its activities - S. Lyapakin. Has not yet been provided.

President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin and the Government of the Russian Federation call for combating corruption, the Committee has been created. Question: what kind of struggle can there be, even if the head of the local administration goes against the law? ....

As it became known from reliable sources, the head of the local administration of the municipal formation of the municipal district of Vasilievsky (St. Petersburg, Vasileostrovsky district) Lyapakina S.V. Does not wish to comply with the decisions of the Council of Defense Ministry of Vasilievsky and fulfill the lawful requirements of the Head of the Municipality.

By the way, Lyapakina Svetlana Vladimirovna ended the contract for the fulfillment of the powers of the Head of the local administration back in 2009, and taking advantage of the current situation with the change of the head of the Ministry of Defense, who left for personal reasons, she without prolonged compulsory competitive procedures, extended her powers to the present time, in Circumvention of art. 131 RF. This fact is established by the prosecutor's office, but how much is it legally ?. ...

The result of this self-will was the fact that Lyapakina S.V. For a long time she herself wrote out premiums and allowances. To date, there are undeniable facts of corruption and abuse of office by the head of the local administration Lyapakina S.V. When calculating premiums, allowances and material assistance to other municipal employees, as well as payment of monetary rewards to persons who do not work in the municipality and municipal institution.

I quote the OEB and KP of the Vasileostrovsky district of St. Petersburg: "At present, the facts of obtaining Lyapakina S.V. Premiums, leave allowances are partially established. Within the scope of the audit of the KUPSP, the validity of the accrual of the above premiums and mark-ups is checked. "

After assuming office, the new head of the MO revealed these facts and was forced to bring this information to the deputy corps, which caused extreme bewilderment and condemnation, as well as appealed to the law enforcement agencies, where currently the investigation and investigation of the qualifications of these offenses are conducted, and In the near future, they will be given an appropriate assessment. According to the information we have, there are facts and more gross financial violations related to the expenditure of budgetary funds.

In particular, the situation began to unfold after the next meeting of the council deputies decided to introduce the position of a lawyer on a permanent basis in the municipal council. It was this decision that Lyapakina S.V. tried to protest. She filed a decision to the municipal council on the introduction of a new staff member "lawyer", and asked the court to recognize the court's decision as illegal, referring to not being able to do so. We violate Article 83 of the Budget Code. The court found it impossible to satisfy her claim, because she found no violation in the decision of the council. Lyapakina S.V. The suit withdrew.

A reasonable question arises: why? Under existing legislation, and in fact, the head of the MO is the employer, and the head of the local administration is the executive and administrative body, the manager, the administrator. Logically, the question arises: if the manager refuses to execute the manager's orders, does not provide the necessary documents, deceives the deputy corps with legal casuistry, but does not want to see a lawyer in the municipal council. What is it? After all, the presence of a lawyer in any municipality is, rather, a mandatory position? Or she did not want the residents of the Okrug and St. Petersburg to find out that she was simply putting her money in the pocket of money paid by honest taxpayers? Since the confirmation is the official conclusion of the PCB on the illegal charging of allowances.

Not to mention the fact that the budget of 2012 was practically overrun, and there were distinct answers - and reports on its activities - S. Lyapakin. Has not yet been provided.

President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin and the Government of the Russian Federation call for combating corruption, the Committee has been created. Question: what kind of struggle can there be, even if the head of the local administration goes against the law? ....