The Unified Association of Civil Guards (AUGC) has requested an investigation in relation to the storage of safes in the Costa Teguise barracks, with the aim of determining "if there are irregularities in the actions of the captain chief of the Lanzarote Company." It was the AUGC who publicly denounced this fact and has now sent a new statement, after the response given to its complaint by the Union of Officers (UO) of the Civil Guard, which assures that the safes were actually given by a relative to the captain chief, so that they could serve as "custody of short weapons" within a measure to "reduce the number of suicides" of agents. In this sense, the AUGC has alluded in the statement to "order INT/985/2005", which establishes that it is the General Director who can accept donations.
The AUGC has described the UO's explanations as "difficult to believe justifications and unethical behaviors". It has also expressed its astonishment "at the management that is carried out in the Civil Guard in the knowledge of the entire chain of command" and has pointed out that, however, "no one in the Civil Guard Barracks gave credit to this behavior, unaware of the reasons for said transfer and subsequent delivery".
That is why the AUGC considers that "the high commands of the Civil Guard seem to adopt a lax attitude towards current legislation." In this regard, they insist that law 33/2003, on the Assets of Public Administrations, and order INT/985/2005 establish that "it is the General Director of the Civil Guard who can carry out the acceptance of donations of movable property, within the scope of his powers, when the donor has indicated the purpose to which they should be destined." For all these reasons, the AUGC has requested that the Civil Guard "carry out a reserved information for the total clarification of these facts and determine if there are irregularities in the actions of the aforementioned captain of Lanzarote".
"Determine if there are irregularities in the captain's actions"
The AUGC believes that there are "too many voluntariness and inconsistencies" in the way of acting and in the version offered after its complaint. In this way, among other things, it has pointed out that it has to be clarified "if the amount of money obtained from the sale of the safes" -according to the other Association, those that could not be used were delivered to a waste management company, which paid 98 euros- "has been recorded in some accounting book." Likewise, it asks "why agents were used during service hours for such a particular purpose, as well as official facilities of the Civil Guard if it was a personal acquisition by this captain", as well as what has been the "procedure carried out to incorporate said personal material as official equipment where to deposit the regulatory weapon of the agents".
The association of members of the Benemérita has assured in the statement that "it is not acceptable for a captain to carry out procedures for the transfer of safes to a barracks", to then justify that as he is the "legal owner" of these, he decides to use them "on his own initiative as gunsmiths." Likewise, the AUGC has pointed out that "he also unilaterally decides to sell part of the safes, and then, and also voluntarily, deposit what he obtained at the disposal of the barracks to cover representation expenses".
On the other hand, the association of civil guards has pointed out that this has occurred in "the institution that triples the amount in the General State Budgets in protocol expenses compared to the National Police." "Civil guards need seriousness in the management method and that it be from the General Directorate itself from where the budget is provided for the installation of gunsmiths in the units" or the "suicide behavior plan" is changed, that "better means are provided" or "organizational changes are made in the way of exercising command", the AUGC demands.
