1.

Fiscal responsibility
Communities have a responsibility of organizing local public services. They contribute to the development of territorial spaces, allow the operation of equipment and services, helping to redistribute wealth in favor of geographical areas, social groups, families or individuals on behalf of collective interests or goals of solidarity. The spirit of these policies is the goal of partnership with government, other local authorities, local actors. The mayor chairs council, regional council and a public establishment for intermunicipal cooperation ( EPCIEPCI public establishment for intermunicipal cooperation ) have the executive branch of their community or their property. As such, they prepare the deliberations of the meeting that President and they are responsible for their execution (scheduling and execution of the budg et, appointments to official posts ...). However, the combination of many powers and potential of various delegations (of power, function, responsibility, signing) can lead to role confusion and the fragmentation of responsibilities within alocal authorityLocal authority administrative structure separate from the State administration, which must support the interests of the people of a specific territory. . The explicit definition of each role must be clarified.

2. Principles into question the responsibility of public officials

2.1 Third party of fiscal responsibility Two categories of financial implicated public officials can be distinguished: theconviction for lack of management or management for that fact. Code of financial jurisdictions has many breaches of public accounting, say mismanagement, sanctioned by the Court of Budgetary and Financial Discipline:

those likely to be committed by officials territorial rights arise not only for breaking the rules implementing the budget, but also what the officer did not but he should have done, even when no text explicitly prescribe how to behave (or lack of supervision organization hiding ...);

local politician, meanwhile, may be brought before this Court as authorizing, in specific cases: the non execution of court decisions involving the payment of a sum of money and, in case of requisition public accountant, the unjustified advantages to others to the detriment of the community.

Management is aimed at punishing interference in revenue collection or affected for a public body, by any public official who does not qualify as a public accountant, or not acting under his control and for the behalf of a public accountant. It may, in this case be said that accounting and management is accused by the regional audit office, which investigates the funds held or handled improperly. 2.2 Third party claims of criminal responsibility The Penal Code provides for several crimes unique to public officials:

abuse of authority, directed against the administration (eg obstruct the enforcement of the law), or committed against individuals (eg discriminationDiscrimination Distinction between individuals or groups based on some particular characteristics (gender, origin ...) leading to inequality. );

y y

violations of public trust (eg forgery); the duty of honesty (eg corruption).

Elected officials and local officials are also threatened by numerous other offenses, for example, by planning law, rural law or by the Environmental Law. The principle of criminal liability of public corporations, however, is accompanied by a major limitation: The territorial authorities may be liable for some criminal offenses committed in the pursuit of activities that may be subject to conventions of delegations public servicePublic service activity of public interest supported by a public or a private person but under the control of a public entity. We distinguish between utilities and regulatory order (defense, justice ...), those aimed at the social and health protection, those of an educational and cultural and economic ones. The legal regime of public service is defined around three principles: continuity of public services, equality before the public service and mutability (adaptability). . The liability of the corporation, however, does not preclude that of its leaders, which avoids the dilution of responsibilities of individuals and can not conceal the personal fouls behind the responsibility of the community. 2.3 Third party claims administrative responsibility When the administration in the conduct of its business, causing damage and injury inflicted, the victimVictim A person who is personally and directly harm the physical, moral or material, because of a criminal offense. can seek redress. If the core of the legal responsibility of public authority under public law, private law also intervenes to ensure compensation for damage arising from activities of the administration (management of activities under the same conditions as individuals, management of private of public persons ...). A foul is called service when a public official has committed misconduct in the performance of his duties and if the fault can not be separated from service. In this case, the administration supports the liability of the act in question.

3. Prevention and control of risks related to local management

3.1 The ethical practice Based on the principles of accountability own public officials, it is possible to determine the ethical practice to guide civil servants and may prevent the risk of defendants financial, criminal or administrative action.We can quote two lines:

ethical practice after the Statute of the Public Service: Independence, reserve duty, professional discretion, confidentiality (and its relation to the reporting requirement on the one hand, and non assistance to persons in danger of another share).

ethical practice released by the observations of regional chambers of accounts: balanced management of public finances and prudent, careful monitoring of public service tasks delegated compliance with laws and regulations on public order primarily.

3.2 Prevention of risk for unintentional errors The risk of questioning of elected officials for unintentional errors arise mainly obligations hygiene and safety, police powers, that put the mayors at the forefront in the event of an accident, and management of some local public services. In recent years, the personal liability of elected officials has been increasingly engaged. To reduce these criminal defendants, sometimes considered excessive, two laws were adopted. Thus the Act of May 13, 1996, which calls for the assessment of each case under the circumstances ( in concrete ), and the Act of July 10, 2000, called "law Fauchon", have relaxed the rules relating to liability for unintentional mistake . Elected representatives can not be convicted if he has completed the normal due diligence under the circumstances. 3.3 The risk management by internal control

The effort to control or internal control, is beneficial to more than one way to avoid calling into question the responsibility of local actors. Internal control should focus on key areas generating the most serious risk, mentioned above (budget, etc..), But also allow evaluation of policies. Way to prevent the risk of any kind which may be faced by local actors, internal control, clarifying responsibilities, also est blishes operating a principles more rigorous, transparent and effective.