The case of alleged irregularities in productivity bonuses at the San Bartolomé de Tirajana City Council has escalated to a higher level of government. Following the criticisms from the Court of Auditors—which had already ordered the appointment of an investigator due to indications of unjustified payments—the case now has the explicit backing of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which has requested a more thorough investigation, considering that financial losses to the municipal coffers cannot be ruled out.
The Public Prosecutor's Office is adamant: reports are lacking, payments are excessive.
According to a document from the Public Prosecutor's Office dated September 23, which Canarias7 has had access to, the Prosecutor's Office maintains that the City Council "has not sufficiently demonstrated" the need, proportionality or legal compatibility of certain salary supplements paid during the last few years.
Sources from the Public Prosecutor's Office confirm that they are working under two hypotheses: Unjustified productivity payments that the Intervention detected cases where there is no report justifying the extraordinary performance.
And dubious simultaneous perceptions: employees who would have received productivity bonuses for temporarily holding several management positions at the same time, even though the remuneration system limits the compatibility of these payments.
The Prosecutor's Office emphasizes that these practices could constitute an accounting irregularity, the term used by the Court of Auditors to define economic damage to public funds.
The Court of Auditors rejects the dismissal and demands an investigation
In a ruling dated November 21, the Court of Auditors' Adjudication Section rejected the City Council's request to dismiss the complaint filed by businessman Juan Manuel Pérez —represented by lawyer Henry Joseph Feltenstein— and accepted the evidence found in the Audit Office's report.
The oversight body points to three key elements: Overpayments or payments without sufficient documentation and unproven compatibility in the simultaneous collection of several management functions.
Insufficient refunds: the municipality claims to have started refunds, but the Court does not consider it proven that it covers all the affected amounts.
As a result, he ordered the appointment of an instructor, ruled out suspending future payments of these supplements as a precautionary measure, and made it clear that the investigation will be "decisive" in determining responsibility.
The City Council defends itself: “Everything was done in accordance with the plenary agreement.” The governing group maintains that all payments comply with a regulatory agreement approved by the full council and never challenged. Furthermore, they emphasize that following the audit report in April, they adopted corrective measures and processed the files under the supervision of the department heads.
However, neither the Public Prosecutor's Office nor the Court of Auditors considers the municipal arguments sufficient. The accumulation of warnings—technical, fiscal, and accounting—places San Bartolomé de Tirajana under an unusual double scrutiny: The Court of Auditors has detected signs of irregularities and opened an investigation.
And the Prosecutor's Office supports this theory and calls for a deeper investigation into individual and organizational responsibilities.
In practice, this institutional tandem increases the likelihood that the case will lead to an accounting liability procedure, where personal reimbursements could be demanded from those who ordered or received irregular payments.
For now, the municipality is simply cooperating and denying any wrongdoing. The investigation being opened in Madrid will determine whether it was all just administrative overreach… or the start of a larger case.
