The state deputy (PT) presented a bill to oblige civil and military civil servants of the direct and indirect administration of São Paulo to reimburse the state’s coffers for expenses that are not related to the civil service.
the governor of São Paulo, (Republicans), used government aircraft to go to Rio de Janeiro to participate in
Asked at the time, the government reported that “the governor’s institutional security, including all his displacements and the means by which he will be made, is the responsibility of the Military House”, and all travels must follow the same security protocols, regardless of whether they are acts directly linked to the government or not.
The petista deputy’s project extends the obligation to return money to the public coffers in case of expenses with the displacement of family members of the public agent, whenever they are not linked to an official mission.
The text defines institutional displacement as being made to comply with official government or public interest agenda. In addition, it says that travels made with the purpose of participation in party, political-electoral, personal, recreational or similar events will not be considered institutional, even if the public agent makes speeches or performs public manifestations.
The General Comptroller of the State would be in charge of determining, within 60 days of travel, the amounts to be returned. In case of omission or delay in reimbursement, the debt would be entered in active debt for judicial collection purposes.
In justification, the deputy states that the objective is to ensure that only the travels strictly necessary to perform public functions are funded by the treasury and cites the governor’s trip to the act in Rio de Janeiro alongside the former president (PL).
“Such a displacement, even if formally justified for security reasons, was not, of course, to be bound to any institutional agenda of the São Paulo State Government, nor was it related to the exercise of the attributions of the State Executive,” says the petista.
“It is, therefore, an example of the use of public goods and resources for the purposes of a personal and political-electoral nature, which compromises the principles of morality, impersonality and administrative efficiency,” he adds.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
