[ad_1]
House Ethics Committee Chairman Angel Matos Garcia announced on Tuesday that there were no votes to accept the complaint filed by the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) against New Progressive Party (PNP) Representative José “Memo” González.
“The House Ethics Committee voted 4-4 with 3 abstentions, failing to reach the minimum 6 votes to approve the complaint filed by attorneys against Rep. José “Memo” González and Rep. Gerardo Cruz Maldonado. Both parties have been served notice, so this decision closes the issues raised,” Matos Garcia said in a written statement.
In April, the PPD filed a complaint against PNP representatives to investigate the alleged omission of information about businesses they co-owned. PPD Secretary Gerardo “Toñito” Cruz announced the filing of the complaint.
“In light of news that PNP Representative José ‘Memo’ González did not include in its financial reports any income from a food and beverage business in Arecibo of which he is a co-owner, I have filed a complaint with the House Ethics Committee regarding the lack of transparency in the lawmaker’s explanation. The lawmaker must make public the company’s expense schedule to remove all doubts as to whether it has indeed received some kind of financial benefit or enjoyed profits. Furthermore, a company can distribute dividends at any time and González must clarify whether he received any type of dividends due to this concept,” Cruz stressed at the time.
Cruz noted that Gonzalez Mercado did not inform the Office of Government Ethics (OEG) about any expenditure of funds used to acquire the business. Furthermore, he mentioned that the representative’s failure to respond to the statements violated House Resolution 326, the Rules of Ethical Conduct of the House of Representatives.
Section W provides: “Representatives, officers and directors of each agency shall be obliged to submit to the Office of Government Ethics the financial reports or any other information related thereto required by that government agency for evaluation, analysis and recommendations as provided for in the regulations.” Law No. 1-2012, as amended, known as the “Puerto Rico Federal Government Ethics Act of 2011.”
Furthermore, the Secretary-General referred to Article 7, Sections A and E of the resolution, in which lawmakers must comply with Section 5.4 of the Government Ethics Act.
“Gonzalez failed to comply with requirements under the resolution and the Government Ethics Act and failed to report his direct involvement as a co-owner of the business,” he said.
He mentioned that Article 5.4 indicated that he must report, among other things, the actions of private companies; arrangements or agreements regarding future remuneration, in addition to an accounting of any gifts received, when the total value per donor exceeds $250 per year and the donor is not a relative. Cruz said that under these parameters, Gonzalez must report the value of the required 50% stake as a co-owner of the business, which is $5,000.
Additionally, Cruz mentioned the significant amount of money reported through the business over the past three fiscal years, generating a whopping $353,000 in gross revenue for the company.
“Gonzalez is a partner in Arecibo’s part-time seaside bar company, whose revenues must be explained in detail. This is a huge amount of money and transparency is essential for such involvement by a legislator. The fact that he says he did not enjoy the profits is not enough. We urge you to provide expense reports for the company registered as Park Truck Bar, which has been registered with the Department of State since 2020,” Cruz explained.
“These remarks and the representative’s explanation raise more questions than answers. You must clarify beyond saying you did not receive the profit. This is not a simple response we expect from an elected official. He must then provide evidence of his remarks to the ethics committee on the chamber floor,” Cruz said.
Likewise, Cruz questioned the lack of transparency in González’s 2021 report on investments worth $18,851 in the Primmérica portfolio as capital gains. “This information has not yet been explained by the legislator and is part of the information requested in the complaint.”
[ad_2]
Source link
