[ad_1]
LAfter the District Comptroller’s Office opened a process of fiscal responsibility against the District for alleged patrimonial detriment in the contract of the First Lady, Cynthia Pérez Amador, and that last Friday the same entity demanded that the mayor suspend the General Secretary for the same In this case, the District made the decision to modify the First Lady’s fees from $ 7 million to $ 2.2 million, as the Comptroller’s Office had initially indicated. (Read here: Cynthia Pérez contract tax liability lawsuit opened)
“This district administration, apart from legal considerations, from which we find the agreed fees duly founded, in order to attend in a timely manner the investigation that is being carried out at this time, and given the position of the investigating entity, it is allowed to inform to the public and to the public opinion that we will proceed to modify the aforementioned contract, in order to adjust its value as indicated by the Comptroller’s Office ”, said the administration through a statement.
With this readjustment, it is expected that the process will finally be concluded and also that the order to suspend the General Secretary of the District, Diana Martínez Berrocal, will be invalidated, who according to the Comptroller’s Office should be removed from her position so as not to interfere in the ongoing investigation. since the control entity maintains that it was she who signed the preliminary studies for Pérez Amador’s contract. (We recommend: The Comptroller’s Office orders the suspension of Diana Martínez in the case of Cynthia Pérez)
In turn, the Mayor’s Office announced that it will reimburse the amount that according to the Comptroller’s Office was paid “in excess” to the First Lady, corresponding to $ 33,600,000 ($ 4,800,000 for each month).
“As a district administration we want to remind the people of Cartagena that we are respectful of the decisions of the control bodies, however, we reiterate that on this occasion we reject the reproaches of the Comptroller’s Office, because we consider that our actions have always been limited to the constitutional parameters and legal, and to that extent we will continue to defend our positions before the calls of the control and investigation bodies, “the Mayor’s Office stated.
Political persecution?
The action of the Comptroller’s Office in this case has been described by the mayor and his officials as a “political persecution”, since according to the president “an investigation by a PAHO had never been seen” until his administration arrived.
“We strongly oppose the political persecution that they are waging against the Dau administration because we have never allowed the miscreants to steal the money, the OPS, the contracts and the ESALES,” said Dau, who also sent a message to the comptroller district Freddy Quintero, telling him that “he is not going to get away with it.”
Similarly, the Secretary General also defended herself against the accusations and even said that the District Council is preparing a motion of censure against her.
“I recently received a proposal of more than 60 questions, signed by the same councilors who support the controller, with three peremptory days to respond, denying me the right to an extension given the volume of information requested, more than 2,500 pages. What seems more like a personal judgment, sculpting me to the last corner of my management; I wish they had always acted with that efficient political control, they would have avoided so much damage to the city, ”said Martínez Berrocal.
The official also added that since she came to the administration she has been the target of attacks with lies, insults and slander that seek to destabilize the government of William Dau.
The arguments of the Comptroller
The process of fiscal responsibility for the case of Cynthia Pérez dates back to a complaint filed by the citizen overseer Wilmer Sánchez, who requested the intervention of the control entity in the face of a possible patrimonial detriment derived from the contract for the provision of services of the First Lady, for worth $ 7 million.
The Comptroller’s Office began to investigate and finally decided to open the lawsuit after finding that Pérez Amador’s functions did not correspond to a contract of the value he had.
“We must conclude that the activities carried out by Mrs. Cynthia del Carmen Pérez Amador, in execution of the signed contract, are typical of a management support contract with non-specialized assistance connotations, so the maximum fee assignment, in light of the provisions of the resolution that sets the limits, they could not exceed the sum of $ 2,200,000 ”.
In this sense, according to the Comptroller’s Office, Pérez Amador’s contract could not be determined as one of “high confidence”, since it implies the provision of specialized services such as scientific, civic, social, legal, economic and accounting advice. In addition, according to the control body, she does not have a professional title or experience to carry them out.
“There is no evidence to corroborate that the contractor is a specialized professional, or has enough experience to support the provision of specialized services or advice in any of the areas previously outlined. Faced with what has been said, it is evident that the only title that the contractor contributes to her resume is that of technician in programming and systems analysis, according to the certification and certificate issued by the Central Polytechnic. In addition, within the supports that appear as work experience, none of them reports that the contractor has carried out work related to the degree obtained, ”says the control entity.
Is the process complete?
El Universal consulted a lawyer to find out what would follow in this case.
“In accordance with article 4 of Law 610 of 2000, modified by article 124 of Decree Law 403 of 2020, the responsibility process is intended to compensate the damage caused to public assets as a result of malicious or serious conduct. fault attributable to a fiscal manager, or to individuals who affect its production.
“Article 16 of Law 610 of 2000, modified by Article 131 of Decree Law 403 of 2020, states that an order to file the preliminary inquiry must be issued when ‘the investigated damage has been fully compensated by payment or reimbursement of the property’ and Article 47 of Law 610 of 2000 states that the fiscal responsibility process must be filed when ‘full compensation for the damage is accredited.’
In this sense, the lawyer states that “from the procedural point of view, even when this implies accepting that damage to the District’s assets did indeed occur, the fact that the unlawful damage is repaired leads to the filing and termination of the fiscal responsibility process; without prejudice to the criminal or disciplinary investigations that may arise ”.
[ad_2]