Portal de Archena
www.portaldearchena.com
The plenary for discussion and approval of the budget was convened for the day December 31 at 13:30 pm, we received the call the "April Fools", but it was not a joke, as real as real were little desire government "absolutist" the PP to accept any remark about making full water all over the place.
There are many reasons, which discussed the municipal group spokesman Win Archena, Angel l.
Hernandez:
No are participatory.
They're unrealistic, while nor the salary increase of the government team, almost the total surplus promised is included.
They're a sign of deception involving privatization.
Lighting, water, garbage, etc.
-Presupuestos Antisocial.
Non-equity:
For Councilman Angel L. Hernandez, Winning Archena has always advocated a participatory budgeting, in which consultation with the public and from the needs of all residents, the municipal budget is built.
There are many municipalities in which such estimates are being carried out successfully and obviously not neglect the needs of the municipality, budgets do not become a game of participatory leaving 0.2% for citizen participation.
The budgets presented by the City of Murcia, budgets are the PP party certainly has an absolute majority in the municipality, 9 of 17 councilors and 51% but that does not mean representing 100% of the residents.
If indeed it would "govern for all archeneros" would have consulted with all, or a majority, the opposition members have already met a closed one week of its initial approval budget and with the assurance that the 9 councilors Popular Party would vote if, without admitting any contribution, as it has been.
They are unreal:
The budgeted amounts are not adjusted to the reality of our town, we have to go far and we just focus on one of the most controversial figures.
The rise of salaries of councilors of the government team was approved at the first plenary session of the legislature, this increase resulted in € 5,000 for the Mayor and increases ranging from € 3,600 to € 15,400 per year for the council of government quipo .
However we find that as the salary of the Mayor if reflected in the budgets, the other heading appears unchanged since 2013, a total of € 92.640, which appear immovable, when it is very simple to calculate, and then take month charging that amount with a simple calculation of multiplying the average twelve November and December would have a realistic budget.
It seems clear that not want to view the pay rise, which is more than 35% in a municipality with a debt of almost 20 million Euros.
Angel L. Hernández, is incredible, obviously, in a budget in which all wages change, especially those of the government team, much higher, resulting a budget exactly like the 2015 or 2013
More surprising was the response we got to express this fact, because we already opposed to this rise, although the object of discussion on this occasion was not the legitimacy or the appropriateness of the climb.
At issue was not listed in the budget.
We note that it is impossible for having modified all salaries of the municipal corporation the budget was exactly the same, something clearly and mathematically impossible.
The answer to this was the legitimization of this rise in wages, already approved, it is also curious that the rise is legitimized by saying that it could have risen as more and have not saved as a demagogic argument all lights but that still does not answer our question why this wage increase does not appear in the budget?
Could it be because this would increase the budget deficit and could not be approved?
Could it be that in that case could not stop deceiving the municipality and say that they have not raised the salary?
Deception of privatization:
In this budget we have seen that privatization of services sold to the municipality as a savings and improved service are not such.
At the time it was impossible to denounce the privatization of public lighting could lead to savings and improved service, as any company would do the same or better service for less money the council and also profit.
This has been observed in these budgets, we knew that the promised savings of 80% were for the election year because for that year had been agreed, "accidentally", a grace period and this company, awarded a service for more than 4 ½ million Euros, it undertook not to charge.
But for 2016, missing the elections and the grace period, we see how much you have to bring to the company is more than the cost so far performed the council.
According to the council of the PP, this is due to an improvement of services, but then we wonder why at the time it was sold as saving what is now higher spending?
Why it not at the time said that privatization would bring more spending?
With the rest of awarded concessions same thing happens, we understand that any service for which the municipality has to file a company, which derives profits, will come out more expensive and thus adversely affect the municipal coffers, we understand that any service that can make the council should be managed by this and pass on the benefits to the municipality.
Special consideration must make to the company that manages the water, granting the City Council, but which do not have any control.
In previous legislatures was a monitoring committee, which currently has disappeared, like the rest of commissions that have been approved and on December 31 have not been established, such as the famous Archena Smart, which has different contributions in these budgets but we know the destination and what are its phases.
Antisocial:
The essence in the budgeting and provides an antisocial character, know the criteria for allocating aid.
But the worst is that reflected motions already approved by this council and they should have a budgetary reflection, as "energy poverty plan" or "measures to mitigate the effects of floods" are not visible.
In short, there are few approved by 31 December at 13:30 noon, the last day to do budgets, which are nothing more than a copy paste from previous budgets.
Budgets made by the Popular Party to pass the "process" in the approval and that the Popular Party has not wanted the councilors who represent the 49% of voters make any contribution.
We wonder where that was to go to govern for all archeneros?
If after the roller passes an absolute majority mercilessly and without regard to the other reasons for opposition
Source: Ganar Archena
Privacy policy
- Legal notice
- Cookies