This was not just any issue: the councillor had intended to address the issue of Sudgaz and the city’s relations with Sudstroum.
The decision to withdraw the problem had prevented a democratic debate on a topic of communal interest, especially since the city of Esch holds shares in the both Sudgaz (up to 42%) and Sudstroum (up to 100%), he explained.
According to Codello, it also put an end to the democratic tradition of the Esch-sur-Alzette communal council. As both the Deputy Mayor and the Secretary General had agreed and signed it to the agenda, he had expected “a controversial yet democratic debate”.
While these kinds of exclusions or omissions need by no means induce a state of panic, it was the precedent this case could establish that warranted some apprehension, in so far as that every political majority would be able to follow the “scandalous example” and thus avoid important discussions.
The communal councillor asked the Home Affairs Minister that he review current laws, specifically article 13 of the communal law in order to “preserve the rights of the communally elected municipal council” that would “guarantee a democratic, transparent and balanced debate”.
