The project introduces changes in article 44 of the Organic Law of Municipalities, establishing that “Councilors will serve for four years in office. except in the case of extraordinary integrations, which will be for the rest of the respective period.”
“They may be re-elected for a single consecutive period.. If they have been re-elected, they cannot be elected except with an interval of one period,” the file states.
The Councils will be renewed in halves every two years. The periods will be counted from May 1 and will end on April 30 of the corresponding year.
In cases of creation of new municipalities, total renewal of the Council due to acephaly or extraordinary vacanciesIf the respective periods of the members’ elections are not clearly established, the Councils will proceed to draw lots for the periods of the other elected councilors. Once the draw is done, the Council will only be able to take office.
César Cattáneo, commissions.jpg
Cattáneo, author of the project that seeks to limit the re-election of Councilors throughout Mendoza
Photo: Mendoza Legislature Press
Cattáneo maintained that moving forward with this modification “would be to give strength to the ordinances that have already been approved” in different municipalities of the province, guaranteeing “alternation and renewal”.
The author of the initiative also considered that political alternation “goes beyond the mere replacement of people or political parties; It is the reasonable limitation of power, the guarantee of pluralism”.
It is the reasonable limitation of power, the guarantee of pluralism It is the reasonable limitation of power, the guarantee of pluralism
For its part, Edgardo Civit Evans (Retired Party), abstained from the office vote considering that “why limit those who perform their role well. I am the least affected by reelection, but aside from partisanship, other countries that continue with more traditional concepts have an attitude that depends more on the people than on the parties. “It is not the problem whether it is one mandate or two, but the example of the most developed countries in the world is the opposite of what we are proposing here.”
They also abstained Natalia Vicencio (PJ) and Gabriela Lizana (FRLN). Vicencio noted that “that is why we have political parties, it is a decision regarding their functioning. In the legislative sphere, representation would have to be modified more than whether it is with re-election or not. There are other ways to expand representation not only by limiting the mandate in time”; while Lizana stated that “prima facie I find it positive but we must understand that there should be a certain coherence for all elective positions. “If we are going to take a stand on this, we should move forward.”
In that sense, the members of the commission pointed out that “it is on the part, because it is what we have within our reach,” given that moving towards other elective positions would imply modifying the provincial Constitution.
Besides, Evelin Perez He explained: “It happened to us with the Parity Law, it has to do with general rules that frame us and that somehow force the parties to make their changes internally. Improving the public service is healthy. There are structures that have to be broken, it is one more tool to generate those changes that we want.”
Finally, Enrique Thomas (PRO) expressed in the same sense that “these types of issues are absolutely transcendent. It is a discussion that has already occurred in the case of the mayors.”
