Boban answered the Pole: "Nothing new with Marianne - the debauchery over the accident"

In response to criticism from Croatian parliamentarian Marijana Puljak regarding the handling of a fire in Omis, Split-Dalmatia County Governor Blaženko Boban issued a detailed rebuttal. Puljak had called for Boban’s resignation, citing the failure of emergency procedures during the incident. In his reply, Boban accused her of repeating old patterns, what he described as “lešinarenje nad nesrećom” (exploiting tragedy for political gain), and questioned the credibility of her claims. The fire in question occurred in Primosten, where the System for Early Warning and Alerting (SRUUK) was activated, sending clear messages in three languages to residents and tourists. According to Puljak, this system prevented panic, ensured orderly movement, and avoided traffic congestion. She emphasized that the system fulfilled its purpose of saving lives, having cost over eight million euros. Boban’s full statement outlines his disagreement with Puljak's assessment. He pointed out that the decision to activate SRUUK does not rest with the county governor but rather with specialized operational services based on field assessments. He criticized Puljak for offering unsolicited advice after the fact, suggesting she lacked firsthand knowledge of the situation. Boban argued that while it is easy to offer wisdom from a safe distance, making decisions under pressure during a crisis is far more complex and carries greater risks. He further noted that during the fire, officials were actively engaged in firefighting, rescuing people, and managing critical decisions. Puljak, however, did not participate in these efforts. Boban stated that there was no trace of her involvement either during or after the incident. He stressed that it would have been inappropriate for her to lecture others on how things should have been handled, especially given the gravity of the circumstances. Boban also expressed gratitude toward all who worked on the scene, particularly firefighters, emergency responders, and journalists. He acknowledged their bravery and dedication, emphasizing that they deserved respect and recognition, not criticism from those who were not present. He concluded by reaffirming his support for those affected by the fire and expressing hope for their recovery. The exchange highlights a growing tension between local authorities and members of parliament, particularly around issues of accountability and public safety. While Puljak has previously raised concerns about emergency preparedness, Boban sees her comments as politically motivated. His response reflects a broader debate within Croatia about the role of politicians in evaluating emergency responses and whether such evaluations should be left to experts rather than public figures. Public reaction to the dispute has been mixed. Some supporters of Boban argue that his response was necessary to defend the integrity of emergency operations. Others believe that Puljak’s criticisms, though controversial, reflect legitimate concerns about transparency and preparedness. Meanwhile, critics of both sides suggest that the controversy could distract from the real challenges faced by communities dealing with emergencies. As the discussion continues, it remains unclear whether the issue will lead to formal disciplinary action against Puljak or further public scrutiny of emergency protocols. What is certain, however, is that the incident has sparked renewed interest in how Croatia manages crises and the responsibilities of those in positions of authority. The focus will likely shift back to the victims of the fire and the ongoing efforts to ensure that such incidents do not occur again.