Andreu charges against Bayona and blames him for the paralysis on the information of the licenses by age
The General Secretary of the Parliament, Esther Andrew, breaks the silence on the management of the controversy over licenses due to age, a kind of early retirement for the officials of the Chamber. After the older exliterate Anthony Bayonne sent a letter this Tuesday to all the members of the Board denouncing obstacles in the transparency of the institution and requesting an investigation against it, Andreu has released a statement in which he “flatly” denies the accusations and accuses Bayona of disloyalty.
Andreu regrets the “damage” to the institution and that a lawyer has invested part of his working hours in the media “disregarding” the regulation which says that it is necessary to maintain “due discretion on the matters that are known by reason of their position and not to make use of the information obtained for the own benefit“. It also makes Bayona ugly that she steps on the work of her colleagues in a letter “containing advances that are not typical of a public servant”.
In writing, the lawyer puts himself in a position of legal and moral superiorityconsidering in possession of the truth“, charges Andreu, who also criticizes that he does not assume any responsibility in the blocking of the transparency body. “The reason that gave rise to the blocking is the attitude and behavior of the lawyer with respect to another person who is a member of this body,” he inquires.
alleged workplace harassment
Related news
Bayona, on the other hand, anticipated it and in his letter he says: “I consider it especially serious that the General Secretariat made a partial reading of this writing to deduce from it an alleged workplace harassment attributable to me”. Parliamentary sources point out that the resignation of the person in charge of the archive, one of the three figures who led the transparency body, is due to the Bayonne pressuresalthough the lawyer denies it.
On the other hand, he maintains that his superior acted “totally inappropriate”contrary to the elementary rules of the public function “which require respect for subordinates and disciplinary procedures, which are based on the confidentiality and the presumption of innocence and they are incompatible with the fact of pre-establishing conclusions or formulating prejudices that can contaminate the organs that can later intervene”.