We repeatedly, finishing our materials, wrote “to be continued”. A somewhat unexpected continuation was received by one of the most resonant materials of Novomoskovsk Today, “Raiding in Novomoskovsk, or How to Get into the Pocket of Every Novomoskovskite” (No. 12, dated October 13). The surprise is that the article about the illegal sale of communal property miraculously intersected with another material – an interview with a deputy of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Council, Sergei Reznik.

In the article “Raidering in Novomoskovsky…” we wrote about a scheme according to which almost 200 real estate objects were illegally alienated from communal property. One of the clearest examples, which was described in detail in the article, is the situation with the premises rented from the city community by the Credit-Dnepr bank.

In an interview given by Sergei Reznik to Novomoskovskiy Pravda on the eve of the New Year, he identified work with youth and care for representatives of socially unprotected segments of the population as the priority areas of his activity.

How these two materials were combined with each other, also with the problems of teachers, in our article further.

Are educators suffering and in need of protection?

It seems that in one situation there are many coincidences for chances. For example, the post-holiday and vacation rest of teachers in Novomoskovsk was outraged by the message that they, it turns out, did not receive their salaries for 2012 in full.

On January 5, 2013, in the first issue of Novomoskovskaya Pravda, Sergey Reznik expressed concern about the wastefulness of the city authorities and the fact that “Teachers’ salaries, which, and this is not a secret, despite the rosy report, were not paid in many schools even for November” – (quote indicated in the original language – ed.).

Do educators suffer and need protection?

Our editors learned about the indignation of teachers about the obvious lie from the joint appeal of teachers to Sergei Reznik. We will cite it with abbreviations, but we note that more than 100 signatures of city school teachers signed the appeal.

“Recently, in the Novomoskovskaya Pravda newspaper, we, teachers, read the “Personal Opinion” of Mr. SA Reznik regarding certain issues of our life and decided to express our common thought. There she is.

Mr Sergei Alexandrovich! Your way of life, your actions and deeds are not perceived by us as a sincere concern for teachers. (…) Therefore, please don’t worry about us. As for teachers’ salaries, in 2012 we received them in full. Even an annual monetary reward.”

Since we rely only on confirmed information from official sources, we turned to the Department of Education of the Novomoskovsk City Council with a request to confirm or deny the existence of debts to teachers.

It turned out that the planned wages and actually paid wages coincide to the penny. In addition, teachers received an annual remuneration of 10% of official salaries.

This document clearly confirms this:

It would seem, what is the connection between property, especially communal, incomplete information or deliberate distortion of facts by Sergei Reznik on teacher salaries and his concern for young people? In order for the picture to develop, only one “puzzle” is missing.

Conflict in secondary school No. 9

At the beginning of the article, we mentioned the objects of communal property that were illegally alienated. In the long list of real estate, which was on the balance sheet of the KP ZhEO, had the misfortune to be the evening comprehensive school No. 9.

The conflict with the forced eviction of students and teachers has previously been actively covered in local and even all-Ukrainian media. But we will still remember the history of the creation of the school and the path of transfer of ownership of the premises in which it was located.

The State Archives of the Dnipropetrovsk region has a decision of the executive committee of the Novomoskovsk city council dated May 11, 1967 “On the placement of the school for working youth No. Suchkov.

Then, due to the fact that the school was located in seven utility rooms at various enterprises of the city, it was decided to move it to the first floor of the hostel, which was being built by the specified trust.

Since then, the first floor of the premises on the street. Suchkova, d. 32, with a total area of ​​315.8 m2, was constantly used precisely as an evening school.

We have documented this since 1997. Then PMK-36 “Dniprovodbud” leased the specified premises to the city department of education. Such lease agreements continued every year until in 2002 this premises was transferred to the communal ownership of the Novomoskovsk City Council.

On July 30, 2002, by the decision of the Novomoskovsk city council No. 256, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the transfer of objects of state and communal property rights”, the entire four-story building on the street. Suchkova, d.

In 2003, the school was registered as a legal entity, according to the classification of organizational and legal forms of management, it had the status of a communal
institution.

In the future, for example, in 2004, the education department continued to rent this building for school No. 9 at a 100% discount, since it was already in communal ownership.

In 2009, even in the lease agreement, the wording “lease of property belonging to the property of the territorial community of Novomoskovsk” was indicated.

But even then, in 2009, there were rumors in the city that the school would soon be asked to leave its premises. This is confirmed by the response of the main department of education and science of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration.

Then the head of the department, V. V. Sichenko, responded to the collective appeal of the townspeople about the closure of school No. 9: “The issue of reorganizing or closing the evening general education school No. 9 in Novomoskovsk is not being considered and there are no grounds for this.”

Already three months after the answer of the head of the Main Department of Education of the Dnipropetrovsk region that the school was not in danger, the Novomoskovsk Interdistrict Prosecutor I.V. Snigach confirmed the legality of the sale of the premises of the Novomoskovsk evening general education school No. 9.

The history of the sale of Novomoskovites’ property

Since 2006, all communal property has been on the balance sheet of two enterprises – KP ZhEO and SKU Trubnik.

Then, in 2006, KP ZhEO became a debtor to various utility providers – Novomoskteploenergo, Ukrlift and others. The method of formation of this debt and the method of its repayment raises a lot of questions for the then authorities, in particular for the ex-mayor Litvishchenko.

Since KP ZhEO was not able to pay the debt, according to the claim of Novomoskovskteploenergo, the property that was on the balance sheet of the enterprise was seized. The State Executive Service (GIS) conducted an inventory of the property and seized it for expropriation and debt coverage.

In 2006, the Economic Court of the Dnepropetrovsk region makes a decision to recover funds from the utility company ZhEO in favor of legal entities-suppliers of utility services in the amount of almost 4 million hryvnias (3905741, 73 hryvnias). And the State Executive Service seizes the property of the debtor, which is on his balance sheet, in order to put it up for public auction and pay off the debt (26 objects of communal property).

In 2006, the Economic Court of the Dnepropetrovsk region issues two other decisions, according to which two objects of communal property are released from the list of seized property.

At the same time, by a court decision, it was established that an arrest could be imposed on property belonging to the debtor on the right of ownership, and not on the right of operational management, that is, it is simply on the balance sheet, as is the case with KP ZhEO.

But in May 2007, the State Executive Service again seizes communal property for the debts of KP ZhEO, only not for 26 objects, but for 121.

In April 2010, Ivan Ivanko, an assistant to a deputy of the Novomoskovsk city council, Sergei Moroz, filed a lawsuit with the Dnepropetrovsk District Administrative Court. The essence of the claim is the recognition of the actions of the DVS on the arrest of communal property in 2006 and 2007 as unlawful.

The substantiation of the claim states that it is the territorial community of Novomoskovsk represented by the Novomoskovsk City Council that is the owner of the seized property. Consequently, this property cannot be seized and forcibly sold for the debts of the KP ZhEO.

However, the auction was allegedly held, but did not take place due to the lack of applications from buyers. Then Aldimashgroup LLC “agreed to keep the debtor’s unsold property to pay off the debt.”

According to so far unverified information, utility providers, on whose debt the seizure of communal property was imposed, have not received their funds. All the premises, including the one where the school was located, were simply “left behind” by Aldimashgroup LLC. Then the premises were resold to third parties, the premises of the school were sold as a state of emergency to Euroinvestcom, and Aldimashgroup LLC became bankrupt.

Interestingly, according to KVED in Aldimashgroup, the main activity is “Other auxiliary activities in the field of financial intermediation”. That is, it can be assumed that the company was created specifically to conduct a financial transaction with communal property.

The people behind the corruption schemes

We repeat that we have already written about the scheme according to which the utility companies were sold for the debts of the KP ZhEO, which possessed them only on the right of operational management. But the material did not mention the names of those who appropriated the property of Novomoskovites.

In the case of the school, it is possible to trace the people behind the alienation of communal property.

So, for example, among the campaigns that “left the debtor’s unsold property to pay off the debt,” there was Aldimashgroup LLC. Then LLC “Aldimashgroup” sold the premises of the school to the private enterprise “Euroinvestcom”. If the direct connection of Aldimashgroup LLC with Sergey Reznik is not directly established, then Alexander Zinovievich Reznik, the father of Sergey Alexandrovich, was the director of PE Evroinvestcom.

Most recently, the head was changed to Alexander Viktorovich Meremyanin. But the previous director points to the likely involvement of Sergei Reznik in the alienated communal property. By the way, Alexander Meremyanin is also a relative of Sergei Reznik.

Then this enterprise sued the evening comprehensive school No. 9 with the requirement to “remove obstacles in the implementation of property rights through eviction”. The statement of claim stated that the school occupied the premises “without sufficient legal grounds and against the will of the owner, which significantly limits the latter.” How the rights of students to education and school employees to work are limited or protected, obviously, the question is not for the state of emergency “Euroinvestcom”.

By the way, the Novomoskovsk militia refused to initiate a criminal case against the school, but this was used by the plaintiffs as an argument when applying to the court.

The decision to refuse seemed to show the very fact that the school was located at the indicated address and the fact that there was a dispute “over the owner’s ability to exercise his powers.”

Actually, the eviction of the school became the scandal that was widely covered in the media. Moreover, the son of the new owner of the premises, Sergei Reznik, almost personally helped to take out the desks from the school premises.

So, at the local forum, photos were published in the topic “Robbery of evening school No. 9”. The photo shows that people present were unloading school
property into a minibus parked near the window of the building. Also in the photo is Sergey Reznik, as if he arrived at the call of one of the initiators of the removal of property.

It was the information about the possible involvement of Sergei Reznik in the sale of communal property, including school number 9, that became the last puzzle that helped to understand the whole picture.

Plus, it perfectly explains why educators say they don’t want to be taken care of in this way.

So, how can we interpret the participation of a company affiliated with Sergei Reznik and his concern for young people and guardianship of teachers’ salaries?

In such an ambiguous case, it is better to turn to dictionaries.

For example, the Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language in 11 volumes calls the discrepancy between words, actions and real convictions, intentions, feelings hypocrisy.

If we assume that the true intentions are not concern for teachers, then what?

And here a brief mention of a history with a large amount of alienated communal property, in the list of which the evening general education school No. 9 was also included, can give an answer to the question.

Instead of a conclusion

Returning to the question, what are the true motives of a person who declares the protection of youth and is imbued with the fate of teachers, and at the same time a fairly large list of facts indicates that this same person harms youth and teachers?

An attempt to protect illegally obtained communal property? Your own protection from legal and criminal prosecution? Trying to keep a good face on a bad game?

There will be no output. As an almost classic said: “Think up something else yourself.”

Source : nmsk-segodnya.dp.ua

Photo: www.nasamari.com