"TO THE PLATFORM AGAINST THE COUNCIL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESERVES AND SUPPORT TO TABARNIA"
A Platform in Defense of something, does not seem very logical to defend or justify that with public money "botched".
An elected public position with government responsibility is not required to know professionally the areas it manages.
If you need to decide on economics, consult economists.
If the subject is related to bread, the query should be made to a baker.
For cakes and pies, my friend Pepe Martinez who is a Grande or the many pastry chefs that are in Totana.
If a tap drips, with a plumber.
If it is about informing about a public work, the logical thing is that it consults with a Construction Engineer (Architect).
If it is about Museums, it is natural that, the councilor or public office, consult with responsible of Museums in the Autonomous Community of Murcia.
It seems common sense and right.
That a platform is named in favor of La Bastida and does not consider important a municipal technical report that alerts of serious deficiencies in the work, paid with public money, seems a little "strange".
If the money was yours, surely you would not like that before 5 months, a work in which they have spent 31,000 euros, start to leak (plural).
When "botched" works are revealed, it has nothing to do with Insignia Investigators that have not built the Argaric House.
The Platform could have the correct Name: "Platform Against the Councilor of Archaeological Sites" It would be his name and not the other one.
Some, a few years ago, they got up from the work tables and now they ask for tables at a time and moche.
the table yes, "if it's your measure".
It is a bit like criticizing public officials who run for office and neighbors vote for him, when some people are perpetuated in them as if they were a Mayorazgo.
Argaric House was built by an agreement that I signed, being Mayor, with the UAB and which was paid the 31,000 euros of the subsidy in good currency.
That of "there's a leak, it's called, it's covered in a goop and you're ready ..." it can be done when it comes to our private properties.
In case of being public money and municipal properties, you can not use laziness and the "vulgar compadreo".
When the 31,000 euros were paid, no complaints were made by the City Council.
The current Councilor of Archaeological Sites has met once with the Platform.
No more because he has not been required.
He was asked to contribute public money (from the City Council) for three months to the UAB and the councilor (that is, me), he fulfilled his promise, proposing to the Governing Board and approving it, a grant for January, February and March worth 6,500 euros ..
It was not the amount requested by the Platform.
But much more than what has been contributed so far by National Geographic (announced by ASBA members in the press).
For example.
The councilor of Archaeological Sites has never refused to meet with anyone.
and menso with a Platform that "demands its head" for the antipathies against it from the neighbors of Tabarnia.
My apologies for using the majestic I.
When an agreement is signed and the City meets its part of the commitments.
Is it a crime of lese-majeste, requesting that a memory be delivered or the inventory of pieces that contemplated the obligation of the other party and is not done?
The requirement to correct the deficiencies of the construction of the Argaric House, was presented to the Governing Board by the Councilor of Reservoirs (as is their obligation) based on a technical report and unanimously approved by those attending the Government Board .
Defending public interests.
How could it be otherwise?
Capici, Felipe and others? "
Juan José Cánovas
Councilor of Archaeological Sites
