Benevento
The General Secretary of the Municipality of Benevento, Riccardo Feola, also intervenes in the case raised by the opposition councilors regarding the membership of Sannio Acque and the two “discrepant” opinions of the Board of Auditors.
And the General Secretary writes: “The actions of this supervisory body, which expressed an opinion different from the previous one, regularly attached to the proposed CC Resolution under discussion and in conjunction, moreover, with the conclusion of the works, on the basis of the note from the Region which, as demonstrated above, was available as early as 4 April, appears somewhat irregular and does not comply with the regulatory provisions. In fact, it is recalled that art. 14 of the current Regulation of the City Council, called “Formulation of the agenda of the City Council”, provides, in point 1, that “the documents relating to the topics included in the agenda of the City Council must be deposited, accompanied by the respective proposed resolution, at the Secretariat, for at least 5 days before the deliberation session, during office hours…”. It is unnecessary to point out that the rationale of this regulatory provision lies precisely in the need to allow the Directors to form their voting intention, on the basis of the documents drawn up in support of the proposed resolution to be approved. Among these, the opinion of the audit body undoubtedly assumes significant importance, which, pursuant to art. 239 of the TUEL, co. 1, letter. b), n. 3) of the TUEL, “.. carries out the following functions:… b) opinions, in the manner established by the regulation, regarding:…3) methods of managing services and proposals for the establishment or participation in external bodies..” . In this regard, reference is also made to the following paragraph 1-bis, pursuant to which “in the opinions referred to in letter b) of paragraph 1, a reasoned opinion of congruity, coherence and accounting reliability of the budget forecasts and of the programs and projects…. In the opinions, measures to ensure the reliability of the settings are suggested to the council body. Opinions are mandatory. The council body is required to adopt the consequent measures or to adequately justify the failure to adopt the measures proposed by the audit body.” This episode has generated confusion and fueled uncertainty among citizens on a topic of primary importance, which is certainly water management, on which the civic assembly had just resolved, by majority, the convinced confirmation of membership of a mixed company. For the foregoing, we ask to know the reasons on the basis of which this Panel, which was also present in the Council Chamber, expressed an initial opinion, which the Councilors took into account in deciding to reject the proposal for the self-protection annulment of the Resolution of City Council no. 67/2023, unless a new opinion with different content is registered at the end of the Council’s work. Having said this, we trust, for the rest of the time, that we can still count on the correct and professional collaboration of this body, shown up to now, avoiding the repetition of episodes that undermine the solidity of the administrative action”.
