Delete
Head of the Benalmádena port authorised his own expenses
Former boss of Puerto Marina ‘paid himself extra 600 euros a month’

Former boss of Puerto Marina ‘paid himself extra 600 euros a month’

Investigator says that ex-councillor Francisco Salido ordered staff at the town-hall-owned port and that the former mayor, who he supported in coalition, approved the illegal action

ALBERTO GÓMEZ

Tuesday, 23 May 2017, 09:48

Compartir

An investigating judge has said that there is a case to answer against former councillors in Benalmádena for sanctioning illegal payments to the ex-boss of Puerto Marina, which the council owns.

According to court papers, in July 2011, former councillor of the Unión Centro Benalmádena party (UCB) and deputy mayor, Francisco Salido, ordered that he should be paid 600 euros expenses a month by the municipal company that runs the Puerto Marina port, a company that he was also in charge of.

The investigators report says that he had no right to do this as the decision was made without the agreement of the shareholders of the municipal company and came on top of the 44,500 euros a year he already earned as deputy mayor and another 210 euros a month he already claimed in expenses.

The document goes on by explaining that eighteen months later, in December 2012, a board meeting of the Puerto Marina company allegedly waved through approval for the payments that Salido was making to himself. It claims that the mayor of Benalmádena at the time, Paloma García Gálvez, of the PP party, committed an offence by allowing the payment to be approved retrospectively by the board, when a full shareholders meeting should have overseen the decision.

García had entered into coalition with Salidos UCB to force out the ruling PSOE party about the time the irregular extra payments to him were approved by the Puerto Marina board.

A PSOE councillor on the ports board at the time said in the 2012 meeting that it was totally illegal to ratify the payment.

García has said that she is calm about the situation, claiming it was an administrative confusion.

Publicidad

Publicidad

Publicidad

Publicidad

Reporta un error en esta noticia

* Campos obligatorios