On March 21, the Popular Party presented a bill to modify Law 11/2016, of November 28, of the Generalitat, the agency for the prevention and fight against fraud and corruption of the Valencian community. Requesting in turn, it be processed urgently. This proposal is the same one that the AVAF (Agency for the Prevention and Fight against Fraud and Corruption of the Valencian Community) delivered, months ago, to all the political parties of the Valencian parliamentary arc, for modification and improvement. This text is not the definitive one, since this bill has to go through public consultation and parliamentary amendments among other parliamentary procedures.
Even so, I would highlight it, beyond a new, more understandable wording (with a glossary included) and more adjusted to Law 2/2023, of February 20, regulating the protection of people who report on regulatory and fight against corruption, the incorporation of labor personnel to the AVAF, which will be allowed to have 2 temporary and non-official people attached to the director of the agency, that is, from his cabinet. It says nothing about the training required for these positions, which suggests that they are so-called “positions of trust” since these will be at the discretion of the director, since they will cease when the director ceases.
A fantastic opportunity has been lost to put into practice the much-vaunted public-private collaboration and expand the incorporation of professionals of reputed prestige in the areas of research, prevention, analysis, intelligence, etc. in other departments of the agency. How much good they would do for all of us Valencians. To think that only officials can carry out this work is to turn our back on the reality of modern corruption processes. Only with holistic and multidisciplinary human teams will we be able to mitigate it and even bring it to public irrelevance. How long will we not make public institutions profitable? And I’m not just referring to the economic aspect, but to changing the perception that citizens have that “they are worthless” and are beach bars for cronies. Even when?
Let me point out that there is another relevant change. The voting formula for the election of the agency director. This would be the new text:
“The director will be elected by the Plenary Session of Les Corts by a three-fifths majority. If the required majority is not obtained, a new vote will be held in the following ordinary plenary session; in this case, the candidate that obtains the majority will be elected. absolute. If the required majority is not obtained in either of the two votes, new proposals will be made by the same procedure within a maximum period of one month.” What is indicated in bold is the relevant text, but let me put context to it and advance another debate. Who proposes the candidatures?
The law reads as follows: “Candidates for office will be proposed to Les Corts by social organizations that are currently working against fraud and corruption in the Valencian Community and by parliamentary groups. Candidates must appear before the corresponding parliamentary committee within the framework of a public call for this purpose to be evaluated in relation to the conditions required for the position. The agreement reached in this commission will be transferred to the Plenary Session of the Valencian Courts.” This text remains valid in its entirety.
To close the topic of the proposed changes, they seem appropriate and pertinent to me. On some issues, the proposed changes could have been of greater significance and scope. Let us hope that in the phase of public consultation and parliamentary procedure they will be implemented and expanded.
The motivation for any law (or election condition) that, in order to modify it, requires more than a simple or absolute majority, has always been the hackneyed argument of “the search for broad political consensus.” In its original and theoretical idea this is the case, since, for any change in said law or election of candidate, as is the case, the votes of a single party, not even two, would not be enough. Which would imply seeking negotiation and consensus with several parties of very different political ideology. A priori, no measure represents the genuine, democratic and parliamentary character more than this, which is the search for political consensus with the opposite through political dialogue (democratic quality). Nothing is further from reality.
This measure of “democratic guarantees” is twisted and used as a continuous blockade, when the person who made the statement is in the opposition, or what is worse, used as a crude exchange of cards (positions to be filled) to obtain the YES. of the vote. Therefore, the modification to an absolute majority for his election in the Valencian courts is welcome. “Dead the dog, the rabies is gone”
On the other hand, some controversy has been generated by the proposal of candidates, since these have to be proposed by civil society. Specifically, associations dedicated to the fight against fraud and public and political corruption.
As of today, there are 2 candidates proposed by civil society. The entities Civic Action against Corruption, the Foundation for Justice and the Observatori Ciutadà Contra la Corrupción, propose the current number two of the Anti-Fraud Agency, Gustavo Segura. On the other hand, the Spanish Association of Managers for Public Administration proposes Eduardo Beüt González.
The lawyers of the Valencian courts are already in charge of reviewing and ruling on the “recusal” of the candidacy of Eduardo Beüt, which has been filed by Accio Cívica, alluding to the fact that the association that appointed him is not dedicated to the fight against corruption. Currently, therefore, we may be faced with a single candidacy, that of Gustavo Segura.
In short, a good proposal to reform the anti-fraud agency, although more could have been done, “just to show a button.” The anti-fraud agency’s participation council needs a comprehensive revamp. As it is conceived, it has no relevance or usefulness beyond its formality and its name.
