Item 2 of those minutes reads as follows:
“To resolve the issue of permission for works on the sports court of Costa Esuri, regarding which it was requested to the City Council, exempt the payment of the fee corresponding to the arrangements on the court. since the plot is municipal and it would correspond to them the investment.”
“The EUC Council through its administration has sent a general instance to the Ayamonte City Council requesting the exemption of fees for the works, without a response from the consistory. It is decided to wait until the work is finished or until the city gives us an answer.”
As usual, the drafting of the minutes is confusing. What does the above mean to you?
- That the EUC Council contracted and ordered works without asking the City Council for a licence?
- That the City Council requires a licence and its corresponding fee for works on a sports court that is on a plot of land belonging to the City Council which it does not even acknowledge?
- That, in any case, the EUC Council will finish the works, whatever may happen next?
What seems clear is that the EUC Council decided, at its own risk, to direct money from owners’ fees to install the spotlights so that some children (perhaps not even from Costa Esuri) can play at night and that this activity will generate noise and thus cause annoyance to the neighbours in the vicinity.
While the EUC Council gets lost in things like this, the sidewalks (which ARE the responsibility of the EUC) are still not fixed.
Item 3 of the minutes reads as follows:
“Mrs. Secretary (of the EUC) comments that in the next general assembly it is a priority to respect and follow the pre-established agenda and to leave to any other business all the doubts of the neighbours, since it becomes a chaos the use of the word between items
The Council approves that microphones or other sound equipment may not be introduced, which may disturb the proper functioning of the agenda.”
There are two things to say about this:
a) The EUC Council cannot prohibit discussion of items on their AGM agenda at the time they are raised.
We have to tell the EUC, because it seems ignorant of the fact that the purpose of the agenda of an AGM is to submit the various items to deliberation by the attendees, who then approve them or not. Deliberating means that we must address these items, ask for and give explanations and clarify doubts. Items are debated by order.
The item “Any Other Business” is a mixture of issues into which everything else fits, because this is its purpose: to raise issues that have not been addressed at the AGM and that are of interest to the members of the EUC.
The EUC cannot forbid the use of the floor by attendees who are members of the EUC when the items it submits for approval are discussed.
b) CERA brought a microphone to the AGM on 3 March 2023 because the EUC does not provide a microphone for the attendees and interventions are not heard properly. There used to be a microphone for attendees to use, but the EUC has removed it.
We are in the same situation as referred to in the previous paragraph: the EUC Council does not want to hear what members of the EUC have to say and does not like us listening to each other either.
Item 7 of the Minutes (“Any Other Business”), which deals with various matters not specified in the Agenda, reads:
“Actions to be taken regarding a residents’ requests to be sent documents of the EUC to his personal email are discussed.
It is brought to a vote that all EUC documentation, such as Minutes, Contracts and audit report cannot be sent to any particular neighbor or provide copies, because control of documents would be lost. A few years ago an owner, and also a member of the governing council took without permission the original minutes and kept them for three months in his house modifying them at will. Then they had to be checked and fixed.
All the documentation that any neighbor intends to consult, can do so without any problem in the offices of the administration.
The Council unanimously approves that, for the time being, no one can take copies of any of the above documents by any means. Any consultation or review will be made at the administrator’s office and with your observation to avoid what happened previously.”
It is very frustrating to notice that the EUC Council constantly violates the Law and the Statutes, either out of ignorance or deliberately, but, in any case, its actions are contrary to the interests of the owners in Costa Esuri.
Why do we say this?
- Because “Any Other Business” does not allow to adopt resolutions as they have not been included on the Agenda and, as such, they cannot be voted on by proxy.
- Because they are preventing owners from having access to information. Only a small number of the thousands of owners have the ability to go in person to the Administration premises. The failure to provide documentation, which is ours, by other means is a deliberate violation of the right to information, which is protected by Law and by the Statutes.
- To state that an owner took away the Minutes and manipulated them is a very serious accusation. Either they denounce it and provide evidence … or what they say is not true.
- In any case, it does not justify withholding information to owners by various methods (i.e. email). Those who usually live abroad or in other regions of Spain, for example, cannot see the contracts for which they pay or audit reports, the existence of which is doubtful.The EUC Council not only require owners to go to the facilities of the Administration, but they will not be allowed copies of any documentation. Owners are only allowed to view documents at the premises. Why is there such secrecy? Why this fear? What does the EUC want to prevent owners from knowing? These are very serious concerns which need to be dealt with urgently.
The Committee of CERA
April 2023
Translation of the original comment in Spanish by JPR:
I would like to thank the CERA for the information they give to the residents and for their commitment.
Once again, I keep reading whole paragraphs that leave me perplexed; not only because certain actions and inactions are clearly illegal, but because of the style they emanate.
On this occasion I shall refer only to the last part of the report regarding access to EUC documentation.
I transcribe Title III of Law 1/2014, of 24 June, of Transparency Public of Andalusia (LTPA): “The right of access to public information”. It says it all. And I mention it because it is not the first time that the Transparency Council of Andalusia invokes this law to force the EUC to facilitate the exercise of this right. But from the looks of it, it doesn’t seem enough for those that are affected.
Let us remember that this law only develops the State Law on Transparency, and that it does so on the basis of a constitutional right. Therefore, article 24 of the Andalusian law states that “All persons have the right to access truthful public information under the terms of article 105.b) of the Spanish Constitution and its implementing legislation, and article 31 of the Statute of Autonomy for Andalusia, without limitations other than those provided for in the Law”.
Article 25.1 of the LTPA literally states that “The right of access to public information may be restricted or denied only in the terms provided for in the basic legislation.” I do not see that it ever applies any restriction to the case at hand.
As regards the “agreement” adopted that the documentation may be consulted only at the EUC administration office, that no copies can be made, and that its viewing can only be carried out under the supervision of an employee of the administration, is directly contrary to Article 34.1 LPTA, which elaborates in detail how the right of access to public information should be achieved: “The information requested shall be provided to the applicant in the form and format chosen by the applicant, unless it is likely to cause loss or deterioration of the original item, there is no technical equipment available to make the copy in that format; may affect the intellectual property right or there is a simpler or cheaper form or format for the public treasury. In any event, if the information provided in response to a request for access to public information is in electronic form, it shall be provided in an open standard or otherwise, it shall be legible with computer applications that do not require a commercial license to use.”
I do not want to go any further with strong legal arguments. I hope that if the Governing Council reads this and consults with its advisors, they will rectify and allow access to documents in the manner prescribed by law. I would not be surprised if such limitations on constitutional rights were again challenged.
By the way, this “agreement” was adopted by vote on the agenda item “Any Other Business”. It is clear that no votes can be taken or agreements adopted unless they are explicitly provided for in the agenda, much less at this recurring point in all meetings. I find it strange that this mistake of a package should be made when it is mentioned in the Minutes in order to ensure that the other items on the agenda proposed by the Council do not have the necessary debate.
I am concerned about the resulting limitation of rights that are intended to be imposed on owners. Rectifying is wise.