Refunds, here are the people that have spent the public money well (and why)

 The outcome of the media meat grinder of inquiries, for 32 councillors and ex councillors in Lombardy has been welcomed with satisfaction by the people concerned. While Raffaele Cattaneo reaffirms his own non-involvement with a public statement, today the decision has been welcomed also by those councillors, like Giuseppe Adamoli, who were in the council in past legislatures, and who found themselves called into question when their careers were already over. From the first news that circulated yesterday, it was not possible to identify all of the names that will eventually emerge from the investigation, which we are presenting here, for clarity.

HEADING FOR DISMISSAL

Uslenghi Domenico, Mauro Rosi, Belotti Daniele, Cattaneo Raffaele, Borghini Gianpietro, Azzi Rienzo, Carugo Stefano, Farioli Gianluigi, Rossoni Giovanni, Bettoni Valerio, Marcora Enrico, Scotti Mario, Adamoli Giuseppe, Alloni Agostino, Benigni Giuseppe, Civati Giuseppe, Concordati Gianfranco, Fabrizio Maria Grazia, Galperti Guido, Guidani Dionigi, Mirabelli Franco, Pedrazzi Fortunato, Pizzetti Luciano, Prina Francesco, Santantonio Fabrizio, Tosi Stefano, Valmaggi Sara, Villani Giuseppe, Viotto Antonio, Arosio Edgardo, Serafini Giancarlo, Alfieri Alessandro, Porcari Carlo.

The former member of the Northern League, Domenico Uslenghi, has already died. Gigi Farioli, the Mayor of Busto Arsizio, was a Forza Italia representative on the regional council. Others are MPs. Another 52 people are going to be indicted.

WHICH EXPENSES ARE ILLEGAL, AND WHICH ARE NOT

The most interesting aspect of the decision of the Milanese prosecutors, which may be a model for the future, is the criterion used to distinguish between legitimate and non-legitimate expenses.

In the decision, the prosecutors wrote that they had analysed a great number of documents and that they considered excluded from the crime of embezzlement expenses for 13 types of goods or services. “The scrupulous and diligent analysis of the documents, the justifications of the people under investigation and the interpretation of the laws” led to expenses for advertising in the mass media, on telephones and computers, on consumer goods, like toners, flyers or posters being considered justifiable. Expenses for managing websites and social networks are also permissible and suitable for the type of use in the political mandate, as are computer software, telephone bills, stamps, revenue stamps, newspapers and magazines which are needed in order to be informed. Moreover, seminars, courses, conventions and associated travelling expenses are legitimate. For this reason, the hiring of convention halls is also legitimate, as are lunches and refreshments associated with these events. The rental costs for the political administrative office of the councillor are legitimate, too. Lunches and dinners are OK, if they take place during an external public event, while entertaining the council group or council committee that the member under investigation belongs to.

Another criterion for dismissal is that the expenses are of such modest amounts as not to constitute “illegitimate benefiting from public resources on the part of the person under investigation.” In contrast, embezzlement is when the expenses sustained by the councillor indicate the pursuit of a manifestly personal interest, “even in the absence of an alternative justification”. The reference regulation is Regional Law No. 34, of 1972, combined with No. 17, of 1992.