Yonathan de León says that the Prosecutor's Office's lawsuit will not paralyze the management of the Arrecife City Council.
And frankly, I think that's great.
Mainly because I've been trying to locate that management for a while to know exactly what is in danger of being paralyzed.
Maybe it's hidden behind some minor contract. Or waiting for a report. Or under one of those interventions' objections that have the unpleasant habit of appearing when someone starts asking questions.
The mayor has decided to respond to the lawsuit filed by the Prosecutor's Office by boasting about his management. A curious choice. It's like arriving late to a wedding and showing off your watch.
Because one thing we must make clear from the outset: Yonathan de León and Echedey Eugenio have not been convicted. There is a lawsuit from the Prosecutor's Office and both have, like any citizen, the right to the presumption of innocence. Justice will determine if there was any criminal responsibility.
Perfect.
But the presumption of innocence does not include the presumption of good management.
That, dear mayor, is demonstrated.
And it is precisely about municipal management that it is legitimate to ask questions.
The Prosecutor's Office has filed a lawsuit for acts that it considers could constitute crimes of administrative prevarication, embezzlement of public funds, and fraud against the Administration. The investigation is also preceded by actions by the UDEF. According to the information published, issues related to minor contracts, possible fragmentations, files, and intervention objections are being analyzed.
In other words, we are not commenting that someone didn't like the Christmas lights.
We are talking about how public money was managed.
And then the phrase appears:
"They will not paralyze management."
Honey, nobody wants to paralyze Arrecife.
We want to know how it is managed.
Which seems similar, but it is not.
The case of Navilán is particularly striking. The police investigation has focused on the contracting related to its first edition and on the use of different minor contracts for services linked to the event. Details have also been published about procedures in which budgets were requested, granting very short deadlines for submitting offers.
All of this will have to be clarified where appropriate.
But politically, we can ask questions now.
That's what we pay taxes for and have mouths for.
The hiring related to Billy Capers is also under analysis. According to what was published about the lawsuit, there are municipal reports that questioned aspects of the procedure followed and the administrative coverage of certain expenses.
And again we must believe that the problem consists of someone intending to "paralyze the management".
What a habit bureaucracy has lately of wanting the Administration to comply with administrative procedures.
Unbearable.
The mayor has also placed some complaints within the political confrontation. And surely there is political confrontation. It would be quite strange to discover political opposition doing macramé.
But the current lawsuit has an uncomfortable detail for that narrative:
the Prosecutor's Office is filing it.
And UDEF is not exactly a local group from Nueva Canarias.
We can discuss political complaints, party strategies, public statements, and even who electorally benefits from each scandal. All of that is part of politics.
What we cannot do is turn any oversight into an attack on management.
Because governing does not mean that no one can ask.
And managing does not simply consist of spending.
Arrecife manages a huge budget. That allows a lot to be done and precisely because of that, it requires a lot to be explained.
An inaugurated work does not erase a reservation.
An event full of people does not automatically make its hiring exemplary.
A political majority also does not transform an administrative procedure into a suggestion.
And a press conference, no matter how many microphones it has in front of it, is still not a certificate of good management.
Perhaps we have lowered the concept so much that now "to manage" means to do things.
Well, no.
My nephew also does things when he is left alone for five minutes and no one presents them afterwards as a model of public administration.
Managing public money implies planning, justifying, auditing, contracting according to the rules, and explaining what was done with each euro when it is appropriate to do so. Because there is a fundamental difference between public and private money: the public one does not come with the option "because I feel like it".
So I completely agree with Yonathan de León.
Let the management not stop.
Let Arrecife continue to function.
Let the investments be executed.
Let the public employees work.
Let the services be provided.
Let events be held.
Let hiring be done.
But well.
And, while the administration continues to run this marathon that apparently no one can stop, let Intervention, the Prosecutor's Office, the judicial investigation, or any other mechanism responsible for verifying how everyone's money is used, also not be paralyzed. Because fiscalizing does not paralyze democracy. Fiscalizing is part of it. And if the Justice finally determines that there was no criminal responsibility, it will be said. No problem. But until then, perhaps it would be advisable to stop selling every uncomfortable question as an attempt to block Arrecife. Nobody wants to stop the city. We want it to work. Although I admit that, seeing how things are, I perfectly understand that someone has confused the two.
Add La Voz de Lanzarote as a preferred Google source.
Stay informed with the latest current news.