He Cordoba Town Hall lived on a Thursday morning unusual situation: the suspension of the Plenary due to protests and the decision not to resume it on the same day, but to bring it to next Monday. The committee of spokespersons, as explained by the municipal government, decided unanimously among all groups that between the two possibilities, they opted for the second.
He General Organic Regulations of the Consistory of 2009 is the key tool to understand what happened and what tools has the mayorthe popular José María Bellido, to order the sessions and the abnormal circumstances that can modify them.
It is also important to understand why the municipal government has announced that from now on, in the face of protests that want to “break up” the plenary session, what will be done is to give three opinions and, if the situation is not reoriented, adjourn. These are the four key articles for understanding the controversy.
Article 55: unity of session proceedings
In the first point, it is stated that treunion ode of the Completeordinary or extraordinary, “must respect the principle of the unity of the act and will end the same day it begins“.
Now in the title threeof this same article, it is established that, “in the event that circumstances that prevent either seriously bother the rest of the session”, the presidency – is exercised by the mayor, who can delegate it, although Bellido does not do so – “can interrupt it and decide, after consulting the spokespersons [de los grupos]when it resumes or if outstanding issues are included in the next plenary session [hay que tener en cuenta que en este caso es que se decidió no continuar nada más arrancar]”. In this case, the aforementioned spokespersons unanimously chose to resume the session 48 working hours later, a legally established possibility.
Article 57: public behavior
Here is a striking point of the Regulation and which demonstrates that the mayorsof different political character, that the city had flexible with the citizen demonstrations. Everyone experienced their moments of criticism from the seats in the plenary room.
However, the municipal tool that orders plenary meetings is much stricter than what happens in reality. He clearly determines that “the audience will not be able to intervene in the sessions, nor neither one nor the other will be able to afford demonstrations appreciation or dislike, and the Presidency may expel the assistant who, for whatever reason, prevents the normal progress of the session.
Article 67: maintenance of order
This article and the 68 must be understood, even if they speak literally of the members of the Corporation, connected to 55.3that relating to the power of the councilor to suspend the sessions.
So, in the place 67 of these Regulations, it is indicated that the President of the Plenary Assembly may “call any member to order of the Corporation who “utters words or states concepts that are offensive to the decorum of the Corporation or its members, public institutions or any other person or entity; which produces interruptions or, in any other way, modifies the order of sessions; or who intends to speak without it having been granted to him or once it has been withdrawn.
Article 68: expulsion
This is where part of this concept is brought together that the municipal government is already implementing: the three opinions For redirect the situation and, if this is not achieved, suspension.
This article establishes that the advisor, “after three calls to order in the same session, with warning in the second of the consequences of a third”, can order this someone “leave the premises in which the sessionby adopting the measures he deems appropriate to make the expulsion effective.
