Promos receive a letter (you can find here ) by Cattoretti Gallarate lawyer who counsels us to arrange for publication of a correction in relation to what we wrote on this blog about the promos. The attitude is quite threatening, just as there threat of lawsuit for defamation. willingly intervene, even if it would be good enough to ask.
Writes the lawyer "In recent days, visiting a blog of the Circle of the PD Solbiate Olona, \u200b\u200bPromos you notice that on 26 March 2010 and January 8, 2011 expressing her opinions on how to operate my assistance, clearly suggests that there were illegal agreements between it and the town of castle (with which - according to her - she is accorded to win the competition). " We went to retrieve the post from March 26 (found in whole here), we wrote: "premises (of the CAG, ed) remained closed until the morning of March 16, came , Providence, a request for free use of local municipal by Promos, a cooperative of winning a contract for the provision of courses funded by the Region and from the social Valle Olona ", and later: " We We also ask if the administrative group was made aware, this is only possible in the afternoon of 16 of its intention to sell, for free, the very premises of the CAG, although the mayor had just said that the CAG would probably be reopened in September. Two possibilities, or the administrative group knew nothing, and still has not had the opportunity to discuss or debate took place earlier, ie prior to the application for the use of the premises. The opening scenes disturbing because the deadline for submitting applications to Castelli was a few days earlier (March 2) Promos and therefore could not know until the last, that he would win the race. " honestly do not understand where we clearly suggested, says the lawyer, who Promos has made an agreement with the municipality of Castello to win the contract. That the notification of award of the contract notice in Promos occurred a few days before March 16 is obvious (the same lawyer represents the date of March 9), and therefore, until a few days before the 16 non-Promos could know her need for the local Solbiate, and we have written this. Perhaps the offending sentence is: "which opens disturbing scenarios" . Let us assume that a sentence is unfortunate, but he was not referring to the relationship between Promos and the municipality of Castello, but possibly those of Promos and the municipality of Solbiate. In any case there is a phrase which necessarily involves fraudulent negotiations and in any case was certainly not our intention to do so believe.
The lawyer's letter goes on to say that we have made it clear: " also illegal negotiations with the municipality of Solbiate Olona he would always say to her, too quickly granted use the local headquarters of the former CAG and, more recently, lead negotiations with the municipality of Solbiate Olona to achieve the aforesaid lease and management / delivery without CAG, to him, professional qualifications and without competition. " Illegal negotiations? As mentioned previously we have accused the council of haste, this is true, ed'altronde is no question that the request has come in the morning and Promos has been approved on the evening of that day. We have advanced the suspicion that the decision was taken by the Government alone without seeking the opinion of the majority of advisors (not talking about those minority ...) and other members of the administrative group. We thought it strange that such premises were considered unsafe for the CAG and then granted for the provision of courses, but in any case it seemed more fitting that such a decision (transfer free of the premises) was taken more collegial. So, once again, the criticism was directed at our agency and not that of Promos, and certainly we have never spoken of negotiations illegal.
With regard to the fact that the premises were supplied to the Promos for service CAG " without qualifications and without competition" , below what we wrote about it in the post del'8 January: " comes (it's an error, instead it was intended to "charge", ed) a public service by a company without that there was a contract, as it should be, or how it would be useful to us was (because I put the conditional will pull out loopholes of any kind). The tenders are for the public body to understand who you are dealing with, in terms of financial and professional. In this case, however, and is the second strange thing, is entrusted with the CAG to a company without being assessed a technical and professional your specific requirement. " The fact that there was a tender is out of question, the premises have been given directly to Promos that was the only one to make a specific proposal. We have seen that from a legal point of view this is possible. The term we used (should) be reported to the hope was gone sadly disappointed that there was maximum transparency in the sale the premises, what better guaranteed by a contract notice. Again, however, the criticism was for the administration and not for Promos.
We are aware however that it may have trouble putting into question the professional competence Promos. Of this we're sorry, but our reference service aimed primarily at the CAG and the services provided by Promos. We have not managed to reach public or private entities who have entrusted to CAG and Promos service where you can ask for news about the training that was applied. We have concluded, perhaps wrongly, that because we had failed there was no success even our administration and that therefore their could be a decision based not on education but also economic. That does not mean illegal negotiations. If the light is ours we apologize and we're ready to make available this blog to publish specific experience Promos have ever had service with the CAG, in order to make the full adjustment.
Cattoretti The lawyer also asks us to intervene with the periodical "The Week" and "News" to publish this correction, but I honestly do not know how the because we have no direct relationship with these periodic, we have never sold their wares, nor that there have never been asked. Our correction is here, available for printing as all the other posts.
Ivan Vaghi
Stephen Cato
