The definitive resolution from the oversight body, released today, confirms the provisional conclusion regarding the complaint that pointed to a councilor's failure to recuse themselves from the Contracting Board. The councilor allegedly maintained a professional relationship with one of the bidding companies in several contracting files, including urban regeneration works and the municipal sanitation service.

The report, dated May 4, highlights the existence of "defects affecting the legality of the procedure." The Anti-Fraud Agency exempts the City Council from direct responsibility, stating that it "had no knowledge of the private professional activities carried out by the councilor," but emphasizes that it is now the council's responsibility to "evaluate the possible legal responsibilities arising from this lack of veracity," especially since the councilor "has repeatedly refused to provide information on this matter."

Among the conclusions of the definitive report, it is also noted that the communication of the analyzed recusal "does not meet the minimum validity requirements by omitting the identity of the subject generating the conflict of interest." Furthermore, a defect in the constitution of the Contracting Board due to lack of quorum, non-compliance with the formal recusal procedure, inconsistency in declarations of absence of conflict of interest, and violation of the Anti-Fraud Measures Plan were identified.

The Anti-Fraud Agency gives the City Council a three-month period to implement corrective measures and report on changes in contracting procedures and conflict of interest control. The municipal government team has highlighted that the agency exempts the council from direct responsibility and that the councilor's recusal "would not have altered the decision of the Contracting Board," as agreements were adopted unanimously and based on prior technical reports.