Definitely, something is changing in Lanzarote. Justice has been slow to arrive, but for at least three years it has been tightening the circle around certain politicians on the island, with a long list of convictions and trials ...
Definitely, something is changing in Lanzarote. Justice has been slow to arrive, but for at least three years it has been tightening the circle around certain politicians on the island, with a long list of convictions and trials pending.
But also, the Mercantile Court Number 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria has also opened a new front. In this case, no crimes are even being investigated, but the judge has done what many citizens have been demanding for years: force politicians to pay out of their own money for the results of the mismanagement of a public administration.
For the moment it is only a precautionary measure, and now it will have to be determined if they really had responsibility in the "bankruptcy" of the company, but the judge has ordered the seizure of assets and rights of 17 people who were part of the last two Boards of Directors of Inalsa, just before the company entered into bankruptcy proceedings.
With just that, and even if they did not end up paying Inalsa's debts out of their own pockets, a historical precedent is already being set in Lanzarote. The bad thing is that many names are missing from the list, and perhaps some of those who are on it did not have much of a say in what was happening in the public water company. However, that is precisely what leaves another great lesson.
Holding a public office or being a member of a board of directors does not only mean collecting a salary or warming a chair. It means assuming a responsibility. And it is not enough to go to a meeting to raise your hand because that is what the person next to you does.
"The defendants necessarily knew or were obliged to know, in their capacity as directors of Inalsa, the annual accounts of the company", states the judge's order. He even goes so far as to say that if they could not undertake the necessary measures to avoid the bankruptcy of the company (almost all of them alleged that the Island Water Consortium was the one who really made the decisions), they should have submitted their resignation.
A few years ago, it would have seemed unthinkable that someone would resign for such a "triviality". From this order onwards, however, perhaps many will think twice if they have to administer public money, knowing that one day they may have to answer with their assets for the holes they leave behind. In fact, the Justice touching the pockets of politicians may be even more exemplary than a prison sentence.
Therefore, regardless of whether the appeals that will be filed are accepted or not, this order has already become an important wake-up call, at least for the future. As for the responsibilities of the past, it may fall short there, and until those who are not the real "sinners" are paying. But at least, there are "chronic" names of the public company on the list, such as that of the eternal CEO of Inalsa, Plácida Guerra. Someone who in reality, has always had the omnipresent Dimas Martín behind her.
In fact, in 2008 (for which the largest seizures are going to be applied), it was Dimas himself who was still trying to pull the strings of the company, despite the fact that he was already serving a sentence for embezzling public funds. He met with creditors and even boasted of devising economic plans for the company. Even the PIL resisted tooth and nail to the company voluntarily requesting the entry of a bankruptcy administration, generating a resounding conflict with the PSOE, which was its government partner at that time.
Now, one of the main things that the judge reproaches them for is that they did not enter into that bankruptcy proceeding earlier, because that measure is mandatory when a situation of insolvency is evident. And precisely for not doing it in time, they are being asked for patrimonial responsibilities.
If Plácida Guerra was only a "messenger" of Dimas Martín, they will have to resolve it between them. The public office was hers, the CEO of Inalsa was her and, therefore, it is to her that responsibilities can be demanded. To her, and all those who were part of that Board of Directors and kept her in office. To those who did, and to those who simply let it be done, looking the other way or, simply, without finding out too much about what was being done
