The municipal clean record is only for newly convicted individuals.
The strategy of the City Hall to protect those with criminal records is to delay the publication of the law in the Official Gazette and then argue that it only applies to those convicted from now on; four aides (Neyde Aparecida, Darci Accorsi, Misair Lemes and José Nelto) would be among those benefiting from this interpretation; the author of the bill, Djalma Araújo (center), says that the primary intention of the law cannot be disregarded.
Goiás247_ The Municipal Clean Slate Law approved by the City Council will not apply to the current aides of Mayor Paulo Garcia (PT). The City Hall interprets that the law can only take effect after its approval, that is, it will only apply to those convicted by a collegiate body from now on. Those who are already convicted, according to this interpretation, are not affected by the law.
The thesis is part of a series of actions within the strategy to protect four high-ranking officials with final convictions. These include the Secretary of Education, Neyde Aparecida; the Secretary of Social Assistance, Darci Accorsi; the President of the Municipal Environmental Agency, Misair Lemes; and the Extraordinary Secretary for Community Affairs, José Nelto.
The first step in this strategy is to delay the publication of the law, a necessary step for its effective implementation. Initiated by allied councilman Djalma Araújo (PT), the Municipal Clean Slate Law was approved and enacted by the City Council, but its publication in the Official Gazette of the Municipality, scheduled for July 4th, is now expected to take place (if there are no further delays) only on the 25th.
Djalma understands that the measure should apply to all those with criminal records, who should leave their positions immediately upon publication of the law. The councilman explains that there are still other legal interpretations regarding the measure that must be analyzed; however, the primary intention of the law cannot be disregarded, which is to provide transparency to the administration with public servants without judicial convictions.
"This is absurd. This interpretation that it only applies to new convictions also opens the door for the mayor to appoint aides who were already convicted before the law was published," complains councilman Elias Vaz (PSol), adding that this interpretation directly contradicts the spirit of the clean record law.
Another interpretation regarding the inapplicability of the law to the current corrupt officials at the City Hall is that no one should be punished twice. Cases like Neyde and José Nelto, for example, who are ineligible due to a court decision. Whenever questioned about the application of the law, Mayor Garcia is laconic. He simply says that he will comply.
The approved law applies to the following cases:
- The appointment of a civil servant to permanent, commissioned, or trust-based positions would be prohibited when:
- Against the popular economy, public faith, public administration, the administration of justice, and public assets;
- Against private property, the financial system, and those covered by the law regulating bankruptcy;
- Against the environment and public health;
- Electoral offenses, for which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment;
- Abuse of authority;
- Money laundering or concealment of assets, rights and values;
- Drug trafficking and related offenses, racism, torture, and heinous crimes;
- Intentional crimes against life;
- Committed against a criminal organization, gang, or group;
- From being reduced to a condition analogous to slavery;
- Convicted of acts of administrative misconduct as defined in Federal Law No. 8.429/1992;
- Electoral corruption, illegal vote buying, through illegal donations, fundraising or spending of campaign resources, or conduct prohibited to public officials that implies the revocation of registration or diploma;
- If their accounts relating to the exercise of public office or functions have been rejected due to an irremediable irregularity that constitutes a willful act of administrative misconduct, and by an unappealable decision of the competent body, unless this decision has been suspended or annulled by the Judiciary.