Isabel Díaz Ayuso PP has used its absolute majority on Thursday to prevent the Madrid Assembly from investigating the alleged illegal fractionation of contracts allegedly decided by the Regional Government in 2021, 2022 and 2023 to reform professional education centers. The call is already being the subject of a judicial investigation for the alleged commission of a crime of administrative prevarication, consisting of the alleged finger concession (through minor contracts, mainly to the Varelec group) of works that should have come to public tender (allowing competition between companies). That the controversy is already judicialized has been, precisely, the argument used by the PP to oppose to clarify the possible political responsibilities of the alleged framework in the assembly, as PSOE, more Madrid and Vox wanted.
“The performance of the Vician counselor, of the Governing Council, and the President, has been impeccable,” said conservative deputy Pablo Posse during the debate of the proposal. “As soon as there has been knowledge that there had been irregularities when executing some works, it has been transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office,” he added. “We trust justice to clarify any possible irregularity,” he insisted. And he has closed: “Taking into account that it is being investigated, that we are collaborating in the investigation, we reject the proposal to establish the Investigation Commission.”
However, POSSE’s intervention has only fired firewood: his mentions of the Koldo cases And they have solivized the socialist bench, which has expressed their protest through deputy Esteban Álvarez, who has described “pueril” the attitude of the PP representative, and has affected him to have avoided focusing on the FP case.
“This is not an anecdote,” Álvarez recalled. “It’s a crime,” he stressed. “I do not intend, nor do I touch, be a judge,” he continued on the proposal to create an investigation commission. “I intend to debug political responsibilities, make the necessary reforms for this to occur,” he said. “Who gave the order? Where are the controls? This has been happening since 2005. It has continued to occur with the current team. We have a management problem. The current team has tried to cut this illegality, but I think it has not achieved it. Fractional contracts is to fraction public education.”
The same critical line has followed Beatriz Borrás from more Madrid. “We talk about tens and dozens of centers, dozens and tens of times that you have awarded Millionaire contracts by finger,” said the deputy of the Mónica García party. “We also know that it was an order from above and that it was done, at least, since 2017,” he continued. “And finally, today we know that the reports in which all that money was distributed brought the signature of E. Ossorio. The plot implies him already his two Deputy Minister, the then Vice Minister of Educational Policy, Rocío Albert, today Minister of Economy, and the then Deputy Minister of Educational Organization, Manuel Bautista, today mayor of Móstoles. We want to resolve political responsibilities ”
Criminal infraction
The magistrate in charge of elucidating if there are enough indications to open oral trial in this case, in which we can, PSOE, more Madrid and the CC OO union, already warned in November “.”
For its part, the Prosecutor’s Office described “a clearly irregular and allegedly criminal administrative action” based on the “rude and palmaria omission of the procedure.”
In addition, Francisco Javier Carmena Lozano, recognized in an official report that the reform of educational centers promoted by the government of Isabel Díaz Ayuso had been made with “”.
Finally, the investigators of the Prosecutor who requested this analysis stressed that their conclusions pointed to the responsibility of the Administration, despite the fact that in the case there are two directors of educational centers investigated.
“The contracting file that would correspond to the nature and amount of the project has not been processed by the Ministry,” he shaves. “The expense has not been authorized by the competent body,” is added on one of the works. “The Ministry, knowing the amount of the project, should have raised the authorization of the expenditure to the Governing Council,” he emphasizes. “There has been an omission of prior inspection.”
The indication of government responsibility is also reproduced in the audits made by the intervention of the centers affected by the cause. They point out that “the center lacks competence to authorize these expenses, which would correspond to the Ministry”; that “the centers only have competence to make repositions, not new investments, and expenses of amount limited to the minor contract”; and that “the corresponding file has not been processed by the Ministry, despite being aware of the equipment needs and the entity of the works to undertake.”
That thesis of government responsibility was precisely the one defended by the two directors and the former regional position investigated when they had to declare before the judge in mid -March: “”.
