Portal de Totana
www.portaldetotana.com
[Juan C. Carrillo Ruiz .: "We are handling public money, and public money belongs to no one.
Not the government of Totana, either "]
Yesterday this Councilman read in the official facebook group of GANAR TOTANA (IU);
"Management and quasi-agreement with the Heirs of Alberto Gray so that the Italian Mansion becomes Public Patrimony.
Initiative that has been slowed down in the Informative Commission with the contrary votes of the PP and Carrillo and the abstention of the PSOE.
Sometimes, defending private interests from positions in the Institutions, stop initiatives that would not cost money or would have a symbolic cost for the people and we will endow ourselves (I have no doubt) with an emblematic building of incalculable value, to add to our rich Heritage. "
In the next plenary, the Mayor (1) will have to explain himself in relation to these shameful declarations as last responsible for the actions, opinions and proposals of his delegated councils to another political group and to another Mayor (2), at that time. Tte.
Mayor and Alderman Delegate of several areas that are part of the same government what reminds us in commissions, that they "are not government" nor do they act as such at that moment (sic).
These are some of the most direct consequences that this provokes of distributing the governments behind the backs of what has been decided by the voters at the polls.
What is the fashion trend at the national political level of a few years to this part to have so many parties that want to share the state cake.
The pacts or alliances between parties are of two types:
1º- Of GOVERNMENT, before the elections;
coalitions of minority parties that present themselves under a unitary list to join forces knowing their potential voters, affiliates and sympathizers.
Example IU-GREEN ("WIN TOTANA" as slogan).
2º- Of LEGISLATURE, after an election or motion of censure;
"trust" is given to the most voted list when being in a minority and some points are agreed in relation to the programs, but they will carry out and inform during the legislature is when the opposition can promote a motion of censure for dismiss the Mayor.
If from the beginning, the most voted list would not accept the imposed conditions, as there would be no "confidence" and then the elections would have to be repeated.
Except in municipalities that can not be repeated.
Example, the pact of NATIONAL LEGISLATURE between PSOE-PODEMOS (and other separatist herbs) after the motion of censure that sent President Rajoy to Santa Pola.
When one says publicly that the pacts of GOVERNMENT after an election are a FRAUD TO THE VOTER and an ILLEGALITY.
You have to be very sure given the prevailing confusion so you do not call him a fool from the parties themselves.
Mainly for the "private interests" of its leaders.
So the best thing is to resort to their own sources and internal postulates that are the first ones that do not comply.
In the procedure for the preparation of candidacies of the PSOE Federal Committee for the elections of 2019 in point 1.7 on the Politics of Pre-Electoral Alliances, (government pacts) it says: "The pre-electoral alliances (list agreements, electoral coalitions) that aim to be established must be agreed by the corresponding regional executive or nationality commissions and transferred to the Federal Executive Commission for approval.
In case of discrepancy, the Federal Committee will arbitrate).
The Federal Committee of the PSOE, does not reflect anywhere that can be made pacts or postelectoral alliances of GOVERNMENT.
What is not fulfilled this is what would be worthy of explanation by the Local Secretary of the PSOE, the Coordinator of IU-VERDES in Totana, in our case, and also why not.
On the part of the person in charge of the PP of Totana because this party, does the same in other municipalities and defends that it governs the most voted list according to them they interest or they mark from Genoa.
The post-election government pacts are illegitimate when they deceive all voters and illegals if they know how to interpret the LOREG without "private interests" or party interests AND ALWAYS IN DEFENSE OF THE VOTED BY THE MAJORITY.
If this were not the case, there would be an excess in the regular LOREG for the COALITIONS of parties, if the result was seen, it could legally be "fabricated" an absolute majority based on minority lists in order to elect a Mayor.
The electoral law says:
Article 196
In the same session of constitution of the Corporation proceeds to the election of Mayor, according to the following procedure:
a) All the Councilors who head their corresponding lists can be candidates.
b) If any of them obtains the absolute majority of the votes of the Councilors is proclaimed elected.
(Absolute majority is the group of votes of the same sign (list) that constitutes more than half of the total of those cast in a vote).
Section b) makes it clear, if it is interpreted as it should be, that the absolute majority of the votes of some councilors should be that which always arises from the most voted list that was submitted to the elections (sign), and that is where The figure of the COALITION OF PARTIES under a single list, acquires its meaning and importance.
c) If none of them obtains such a majority (of councilors), the Alderman is the Alderman who heads the list that has obtained the highest number of popular votes in the corresponding Municipality.
In case of a tie, it will be resolved by draw.
Section c) tells us that if no list has obtained the absolute majority of councilors, the Mayor of the most voted list will govern.
Therefore, the sum of councilors of PSOE-IU-GREEN, can never be a legitimate absolute majority because they have not been presented before in COALITION.
Imposing therefore the list that more popular votes have obtained.
On the other hand, there should be pacts of the legislature with the most voted list before investing the Mayor since a motion of censorship needs legal arguments.
These legal arguments are the breach of the legislature pacts.
The Aldermen that are not part of that most voted list would only be left as a vote, by logical and simple elimination, that of the ABSTENTION.
The Mayor will be voted with an SI only by his or her own.
It will be in the plenary sessions in a minority, controlled, and the opposition will be able to make a motion of censure when they do not comply with the agreement within their term.
Everything else is "private interests" of those who make up the lists and their parties to occupy the mayoralties (Presidencies) without caring about the voter or his vote.
Voting NO to the candidate of the most voted list in minority, is a sovereign stupidity in the municipalities because the elections can not be repeated due to the fact of not having reached a pact of the legislature.
Going back to the commissions.
It reminded us of the proponent who in 2006 presented this initiative to the plenary.
Proposal that did not go ahead either.
What from his "government responsibility" (2015/2017), being the Mayor (1), took steps with the Directorate General of Cultural Assets, Autonomous Community, other Institutions and with the family.
The Plenary Session of the City Council is the highest governing body in the Municipal Administration, (Mayor and Councilors) and one of its functions is: "The alienation of assets, as provided by law and the acquisition of assets and rights."
The proponent, not being mayor (1 or 2), now needed permission from the Corporation and came to ask us for a "blank check" to continue with the "quasi" auctioned today conversations on a property "that would not cost money or they would have a symbolic cost for the people "as they declare, on a property that at the same time, they consider" an emblematic building of incalculable value "(sic), and that they will not relent in their acquisition attempt.
On these advanced conversations with the property, it was not clear what was the firm will of the property and that it was "quasi" all agreed.
Neither was the use clear, nor have we been an active part in anything, the same as we have the ultimate responsibility and direct competition to be able to indebt more or less the residents of Totana.
That now all this is used to defenestrate the whole Corporation and accuse us of defending private interests those who have come to power for their "private interests" behind the backs of their voters.
Well forgive me that I laugh a lot.
But look, in time is GAIN TOTANA to include this issue in your future electoral program.
Suffice it to remember, above, the ruinous economic situation of this municipality so that we all went through a tremendous chill in the back and stage terror at least, hear raise today, enter into more financial adventures that were not considered extreme need for the totaneros and that it was not perfectly clear their final outcome.
I think from my responsibility as Councilman what the last thing we need is more assets, more payment commitments, more property to maintain while not seriously attacking the current economic debt, instead of continuing to pull the "taco" (bundle of bills from the pocket) as the Andalusians say.
They have really believed, that said the current Minister Carmen Calvo;
"We are handling public money, and public money belongs to no one." Well, look, I did not believe it.
Public money belongs to everyone.
What is not common to all is the current local government fraud
The Independent Councilor
Juan C. Carrillo Ruiz.
Source: Juan C. Carrillo Ruiz.
Privacy policy
- Legal notice
- Cookies