Más Madrid Defends its Prudent Vote on Municipal Sports City

The party justifies its opposition to a selection process due to legal warnings and an ongoing lawsuit.

Legal document with stamps and magnifying glass, indicating municipal warnings.
IA

Legal document with stamps and magnifying glass, indicating municipal warnings.

Más Madrid Alcalá has defended its vote regarding a selection process at the Municipal Sports City, arguing for legal caution due to warnings from the Intervention department and an ongoing court case.

Más Madrid Alcalá has responded to accusations from Vox, calling them "absurd," and defended their actions concerning the Municipal Sports City. "PP and Vox are the Government of Alcalá, stop passing the buck, listen to the residents, and get to work instead of blaming the opposition for your governmental mistakes," stated the party.
The political party reiterated its "voting criteria for the Municipal Sports City," noting that "it is ridiculous to talk about a blockade" when they only voted against 15% of initiatives. They affirmed that they always vote in favor of what is positive for sports and that they have been collecting resident complaints, presenting proposals that "PP and Vox systematically reject." They cited a proposal to "resolve the critical situation at the Espartales Sports Complex" as an example.
Más Madrid Alcalá explained that they vote against proposals when there are intentions to privatize or cut public services, attack sports clubs, or if the file contains "legal warnings and could be illegal," defining these as their "three red lines."
Regarding the specific selection process mentioned by Vox, the file "had express warnings from the municipal Intervention department," which motivated their vote. They congratulated the candidates who successfully completed the process and obtained positions, recognizing their merit and ability. "We do not question their merit, their capacity, or their right to be appointed in any way," they assured.
They added that, precisely for "guarantees," they are "cautious" as the agenda item "is subject to challenge." They pointed out that "there is a lawsuit in court denouncing irregularities in the process, and the matter is still ongoing." Added to this are the "aforementioned warnings from the municipal Intervention in the report." Therefore, they issued "a vote of prudence and responsibility, a vote that is not against anyone, a vote in favor of caution from an administrative and guarantor logic."