District Registrar is the Head of the District corresponding to Revenue District. There are 33Registration Districts in Karnataka state and the District Registrar also exercises the powers of Registrar under the following Acts.
Karnataka Societies Act, 1960.
He also acts as Deputy Commissioner of Stamps under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
The District Registrar is assisted by the Head quarters Assistants in the administration of the department at the District level.
ADDRESS AND THE TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRARS AND SUB REGISTRARS
Local authorities and NGO partnership in Lviv: myths and realities
This publication is devoted to presenting realities and prospects of partnership between the bodies of local power and NGOs at local level in the city of Lviv. The article aims at maximally objective description of the process of such partnership.
Myth No.1: Authorities support NGOs activity through financing programs and projects from the city budget
Local authorities try to set up dialogue with local NGOs by conducting different common events and implementing projects important for the city. However, very often such activity is not open and transparent for the public. Competitions are mainly based on a closed procedure: it is not clear what are the criteria for determining a winner; who determines a winner; whether authorized parties have a proper level of understanding of the problems of civil society. Some of the departments of city council at their own discretion support NGOs without announcing open calls. In addition, nobody holds evaluation of the implemented projects and their contribution to the city development. Actually there is no strategy for the city and NGOs partnership. Extremely significant are the facts of conflict of interest when the city council funds those NGOs which are somehow connected with public servants or deputies (who are their founders or members).
Myth No.2: Local authorities provides NGOs with communal offices
This process is cloaked in various corruption risks. In order to get a communal office an NGO have to be loyal to the city council, or its interests must be lobbied by deputies or local officials. Thus, in 2011 on the simplified procedure, an NGO founded by city mayor of Lviv received an office in the city center. For any other NGO this chance seems to be impossible. Often public servants or their relatives establish NGOs in order to get a communal apartment for their activity, and then the office is actually resold at the trade market. This sphere is closely connected to criminal crimes.
Myth No.3: Authorities popularize NGO activity through their media channels
Local authorities usually popularize activity of NGOs which are loyal to them. When analyze a web-page of Lviv city council, one can observe that appr. 60% of all news about the activity of local NGOs relates to the organization founded by the city mayor.
Often local politicians establish NGOs in order to participate in elections. In this case NGOs are used as a platform for getting power. This kind of tendency is destructive for the whole civil society development
NGOs activity related only to youth and social issues is being advertised. On the other hand, activity aiming at controlling the level of publicity of the use of city budget, disposing communal ownership, anticorruption activity is actually ignored. Corruption risks in the public servants’ way of working are extremely high. Local power takes no systematic steps in order to overcome those risks.
Myth No.4: NGOs can participate in the decision making process through public hearings
There is no practice of involving NGOs to decision making process in Lviv. Local authorities usually design draft laws related to NGO activity without bringing organizations to their discussion.
For the last two years public hearings in the city are held sporadically. There is no valid normative act which regulates public and NGO participation in the hearings. The draft law which was recently presented contains many violations of Ukrainian legislation and obviously discriminative norms. It was also designed without any consultations with local NGO experts and will probably be adopted without their recommendations taken into account. What is important is that for the last 20 years there were no referenda held in the city, and this can indicate weak democratic traditions.
Myth No.5: Local authorities creates consultative bodies in order to involve NGO to making suggestions
No effective consultative bodies under the city council were created in order to take up consultations. It’s a usual situation when NGOs have to sue the council to make it take into account NGOs’ recommendations and proposals. So, organizations have to go to court in order to defend their rights and prove that council’s activity is illegitimate.
Myth No.6: NGOs’ access to public information is very easy
The easy access can only be observed when the question is not much important and deals with the functioning of the city council. In order to force the city council make all the adopted documents public NGOs have to address the court. For the time being the city administration hides those decrees which relate to the issues of communal ownership and land. By doing so it violates the legislation saying that this kind of information belongs to private one. However the data about how the community’s ownership is used cannot be private. In some of the cases when it relates to famous sportsmen this kind of information can be a resonant PR element. Access to all other information is closed.
Myth No.7: Public servants understand the needs of civil society
Most of public servants do not understand what the civil society is. That’s why obstacles for some of NGOs are deliberately created. Most servants see NGOs as their enemy, but not a partner. Many local authorities have no experience of NGO activity or the information they got about it is mostly negative. Any initiatives on establishing partnership are artificial. The so called facade democracy works here, which is nominate by its essence. The power looks for quantative indicators: the number of registered NGOs is increasing, the number of public hearings also went up, funding is increased as well. However the essence of democratic values is ruined