The year 2026 is, above all, the Year of Nadia. It marks half a century since Nadia Comăneci became the first gymnast in history to score a perfect 10 at the Olympic Games. But it is also the year of Onești — the city that gave the world the “Goddess of Montreal” and which has now been awarded the title of European City of Sport.

At the same time, 2026 will see the Municipal Sports Club (CSM) Onești organize a series of major events under the “Year of Nadia 2026” project. The highlights are scheduled for the end of May, when the city on the Trotuș River will host the “Nadia Comăneci International Cup – Perfect 10” gymnastics competition and the “Champions Gala” at the Carom sports base.

Equally important, however, 2026 represents the beginning of a new stage for sports infrastructure in Onești — one aimed at excellence and worthy of Nadia Comăneci’s legacy.

On May 6, Romania’s Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration announced the launch of the decision-making transparency procedure for drafting a government resolution approving the technical and economic indicators for the investment project “Rehabilitation, modernization, expansion and equipment of the Onești Municipal Sports Club.”

The Romanian Government has thus given the green light to a EUR 24 million investment project (over RON 122 million), aimed at rehabilitating the entire sports complex where Nadia Comăneci began and perfected her legendary career. Once completed, the CSM Onești sports base will be renamed the “Nadia Comăneci National Sports Complex.”

“I am extremely happy that, after many years of sustained efforts and thanks to the involvement of the CSM Onești team, this project is becoming reality. It is not just about new buildings, but about giving children the chance to grow up in an environment that inspires them. It is our way of telling them that they, too, can achieve perfection,” Nadia Comăneci said after learning of the government’s decision.

“This is a very important step, and we are especially pleased that it has been taken. Onești, the cradle of Romanian gymnastics, fully deserves such recognition, and turning this project into reality with government support will not bring joy only for a moment — it will change destinies,” said CSM Onești director Ingrid Istrate, who initiated the project years ago and fought to bring it to fruition.

At the beginning of 2026, dubbed the “Year of Nadia,” Ingrid Istrate told local newspaper Deșteptarea that the naming of the future complex was deliberate.

“It is no coincidence that we chose the name ‘Nadia Comăneci National Sports Complex.’ A sponsor covered all project design expenses without any support from the state. Now we hope that the Romanian state will offer Nadia a valuable gift in the ‘Year of Nadia Comăneci’ by turning this project into reality. For me, it is now or never,” she said.

The project goes beyond the rehabilitation of the Nadia Comăneci gymnastics hall, where Romania’s Olympic gymnastics team trained in the 1970s, and the Vasile Pușcașu weightlifting hall, linked to Olympic medalist Mihaela Cambei.

Plans also include modernization of the gymnastics hall and annex, tennis courts, athletics facilities, locker rooms and administrative headquarters. The existing micro-hotel and cafeteria are set to be demolished and replaced with three new buildings providing accommodation and recovery spaces for athletes and coaches, a weightlifting training hall with associated locker rooms, a museum, conference hall and auxiliary spaces, while the administrative building will be reconfigured.

In the Year of Nadia, Onești is paying tribute to its past while looking toward the future with pride, confidence and hope.

Students of the AstroCrew club from the “Gheorghe Vrănceanu” National College in Bacău achieved outstanding results at the National Astronomy and Astrophysics Olympiad, bringing important awards and distinctions to Bacău County.

In the Juniors 2 category, Maria Țipa received an honorary mention, while Andrei Prisăcariu was awarded a bronze medal. In the Seniors 1 category, Alexandru-Ioan Jicu won Third Prize, the award for the best theoretical paper, and qualification for the extended national astronomy and astrophysics team.

Representatives of the college stated that the performances reflect the work of a team built and developed over time within the AstroCrew club, where more experienced students support those who are just beginning their journey in astronomy. The club organizes weekly activities through its “Excel” section, dedicated to high performance, and the “Intro” section, aimed at students taking their first steps in the field.

The club leadership and coordinating teachers expressed appreciation for mentors Ioana Murariu, Călin Crețu, and Victor Gruia for their involvement in preparing the students, as well as for Alex Jicu, considered one of the team’s main sources of support in solving both theoretical and practical problems.

Thanks were also extended to mathematics and physics teachers Cristina Andrei, Gabriela Dumitru, Alisa Vancea, and Lucian Lazăr for supporting the students throughout their preparation.

AstroCrew coordinator Delia Pintilie congratulated all participants and wished Alexandru-Ioan Jicu success in the selection rounds for the extended national astronomy and astrophysics team.

Depending on the ideological and cultural frameworks of an era, the political regime in place, and the questions the present asks of the past, History has the unfortunate habit of reshaping historical dates and their meanings. Few examples are more illustrative than May 9, which, in Romania’s case, managed until recently to embody a rare triple significance: Independence, Victory, and Europeanness. For decades, May 9 functioned as a kind of “compressed universe” of modern Romanian history.

Today, however, that symbolic core has fragmented, its meanings redistributed between May 8, 9, and 10 in a process that says more about the present than about the past. With a touch of irony, one might say that May 9 has been “decongested” to make room for all its competing interpretations. Independence has shifted toward May 10, privileging the Crown over Parliament; Victory oscillates between May 8 and 9; while Europe claims its own symbolic stage. The calendar thus becomes a space of continuous negotiation between facts and meanings — a realm of interpretation rather than immutable certainty.

May 8, aligned with Western practice, commemorates the capitulation of Nazi Germany and the end of the war in Europe. May 9 preserves a dual legacy: the symbolism of victory in the Eastern tradition and, more recently, the European dimension inaugurated by the Schuman Declaration. Finally, May 10 revives an older tradition linked to the accession of Carol I to the throne and the royal sanctioning of Romania’s Independence in 1877 during the Russo-Turkish War.

This symbolic “decompression” is no accident but rather the result of an ongoing identity repositioning. Contemporary Romania, situated at the crossroads of several political and cultural traditions, can no longer — and perhaps no longer wishes to — compress the entire burden of its past into a single date. In place of a monolithic memory emerges a distributed one: more nuanced, yet also more difficult to manage.

Viewed critically, this fragmentation may suggest a certain uncertainty, as though Romanians are no longer entirely sure what they celebrate and when. At the same time, it reflects a more mature relationship with history. There is no longer a need for a single “total” date; instead, society accepts the coexistence of multiple meanings, even when they do not perfectly overlap.

For Romania’s citizens, May 9 is important not only because of its political significance but also because of the subtle tensions it reveals between the fundamental institutions of the modern state. Beyond the solemnity of the moment lies an essential question: who truly legitimizes an act of such magnitude — the nation represented through Parliament or the monarchy embodied by the ruler?

The historical context is well known. During the Russo-Turkish War, relations with the Ottoman Empire had become incompatible with the aspirations of Romania’s political elite, who sought the Europeanization of the country. On May 9, 1877, Foreign Minister Mihail Kogălniceanu delivered in the Chamber of Deputies the famous declaration proclaiming that “We are independent; we are a nation unto ourselves!” It was not merely a speech, but a foundational political act subsequently endorsed by the representatives of the nation.

From a constitutional perspective, matters were relatively clear. Under Romania’s 1866 Constitution, sovereignty belonged to the Nation and was exercised through its elected representatives, namely Parliament. The legislature had the authority to adopt major political acts, including declarations of principle such as independence. The initial legitimacy of the May 9 act therefore belonged unequivocally to the legislative body.

Yet within the architecture of the modern state, the monarchy was far from a passive spectator. Prince Carol I held essential powers in sanctioning and promulgating legislation and served as guarantor of institutional balance. Moreover, his role in commanding the army and managing foreign relations proved decisive in transforming a political declaration into an internationally recognized reality. Without the active involvement of the Crown, independence would likely have remained, at least temporarily, an internal aspiration.

If Parliament proclaimed independence and the ruler consecrated it, then who truly “owns” the symbolism of the moment? It is no coincidence that public memory has long attempted to distribute the merits. Kogălniceanu’s speech remained emblematic, while Carol I emerged as the guarantor of independence won on the battlefield. The monarchy’s desire to link its name to this foundational act should not be seen merely as personal ambition, but rather as a broader strategy of legitimacy common to 19th-century constitutional monarchies. In an era when nation-states were consolidating, the Crown needed to identify itself with the defining moments of national construction. Independence offered precisely that form of symbolic capital.

On the other hand, Parliament was equally unwilling to surrender the monopoly of meaning. Independence had been articulated politically by the representatives of the nation, and democratic legitimacy — even limited by the electoral system of the time — gave the act a distinct authority. Thus, May 9 became not merely a historical date, but a symbolic battleground between two sources of legitimacy: the Nation and the Crown.

Looking back today, perhaps the emphasis should fall not on rivalry but on cooperation. Romania’s independence was not the exclusive result of parliamentary will or royal decision, but the product of convergence between them. Parliament formulated the project, the Crown supported and represented it, and the Army consecrated it through sacrifice.

Seen in this light, May 9, 1877 becomes more than a proclamation. It marks the moment when the Romanian state affirmed not only its external sovereignty but also its internal maturity, demonstrating that it could articulate and sustain a major political project through the cooperation of its fundamental institutions. It was one of the rare moments in Romanian history when all political and institutional forces sought to identify themselves with the Nation itself.

Bacău Local Council is set to debate on May 13 a draft decision regarding the direct delegation, through concession, of the public stray dog management service to the Municipal Public Services Company of Bacău.

According to the draft resolution, the public service currently operating under the authority of the municipality would cease its activity once the delegation contract is signed. The employment contracts of the specialized staff currently working within the service would also terminate by law, with employees expected to be taken over by the municipal company through new labor contracts.

The document also stipulates the repeal of any contrary provisions once the resolution is adopted.

The proposal comes amid growing controversy over how stray dog management activities should be handled in the city. In recent months, animal lovers and representatives of animal protection organizations have criticized the plan to concession the service to the municipal company, citing concerns over transparency, shelter conditions, and compliance with animal welfare standards.

Public debate has also focused on the efficiency of the current system, the costs associated with stray dog management, and the lack of long-term solutions aimed at reducing the number of abandoned animals.

Municipal officials argue that delegating the service to the company subordinated to the Local Council would allow for more efficient management and improved administrative coordination of the activities involved.

The draft resolution is scheduled to be submitted for a vote during the ordinary meeting of the Local Council on May 13.