Election in the Retirement and Pension Fund for University Professionals | Daily Change

The election should have been by law in June. Pandemic by the Electoral Court postponed it to October 20, the day it was carried out. To govern this election, the Electoral Court issued a Regulation on 07/28/21 and on 09/08/21 a rigorous Instruction marking how the polling stations should work. On 09/24/21 he called the elections. Dr. Ariel Nicoliello, candidate? It seems that the Caja and the Court “lost the turtle.” Such was the case with Dr. Nicoliello. He could appear on the roll as a voter (if he was active and up to date with the Fund). But he could not head the list of assets No. 54 aspiring to preside over the Board of Directors of the Fund because it was prevented by Article No. 16 of the Organic Law of the Fund No. 17,738 (T / III-C / II) that we transcribe in the pertinent, verbatim.
“Article 16. The Board of Directors will be renewed in its entirety for four-year periods.
“The anticipated vacancies will be provided for the respective complementary period.
“Whoever has been elected or appointed for two consecutive periods, cannot be elected for the following” period.
“In the case of alternates, this provision shall apply when they hold office for more than 18″ months in each period. ” (The highlighted and underlined is ours).
Dr. Nicoliello was “appointed for two consecutive terms” as Director of the Fund. The periods are understood to be four-yearly as stated in article 16.
First term of Dr. Nicoliello. In 2013, a new Board of Directors was installed for the period 2013 – 2017. By resolution of President Mujica dated October 22, 2013, Dr. Nicoliello was appointed as Director of the Fund. Considering II) of that resolution precisely refers to the fact that the two representatives of the Executive Power who leave their positions, it is because they held it for two consecutive periods (2005-2009 and 2009-2013), “maximum period authorized by law.”
In March 2015, the national government changed and Mujica passed to Dr. Vázquez, who by resolution of March 20, 2015 reiterated Dr. Nicoliello to complete his first term until 2017.
Second term of Dr. Nicoliello. In 2017, a new Board of Directors is installed for the period 2017 – 2021. By resolution of President Vázquez dated July 24, 2017, Dr. Nicoliello is appointed as Director of the Fund, thus beginning his second consecutive period as Director appointed to the four-year period 2017 – 2021.
In March 2020, the national government changed and Dr. Vázquez passed the Executive Power to Dr. Lacalle Pou. This substantial change implied that the new government decided to appoint its own delegates to the Board of the Caja. By resolution of President Lacalle Pou of May 26, 2020, he appoints two new delegates of the EP in that Board: Cr. Luis González and Dr. Gerardo López Secchi, who remove Ec. Adriana Vernengo and Dr. Ariel Nicoliello. Thus ends his second period for which he had been appointed. However, from that October 22, 2013 to May 26, 2020, the 48 months of the entire first period passed, plus 32 months (66.7%) of the second period for which Dr. Nicoliello was consecutively appointed, for the Executive Powers of Mujica and Vázquez.
The question arises: Was Dr. Nicoliello, lawyer, professor of Social Security at UDELAR, unaware that he violated Article 16 of the Caja de la Caja, where he spent almost 7 years as Director? The issue is that the list 54 that he headed should not have been admitted by the Electoral Court to compete, for violating an article of the Law of the Fund. Seeing who presented the list and the candidate, ignorance of the law, which on the other hand, does not exempt from guilt, is not acceptable. Doubts therefore arise that give rise to many assumptions.
Did the Fund report which of the members of the registry had inhibitions as eligible according to the Law? In the Electoral Court, did it not sound to anyone that Dr. Nicoliello had already been proclaimed in two terms? Guilt is an orphan. But the fundamental thing is that it must return to the numbers of the primary scrutiny, annul the votes of list 54 because it should not have been accepted in the competition and after that, among the resulting votes, distribute the four positions corresponding to the assets in the Directory. If the Court annuls only the presence of Dr. Nicoliello and keeps the rest of the list valid, it is incorrect. Because if the figure of Dr. Nicoliello had been the decoy used by the rest to capture votes and take his place, after he was displaced, the architects of a subtle stratagem would arrive at the Directory. Electoral justice would not be delivered because the general interest of the voters would have been affected by having led them into error by voting for whoever was prevented as eligible. Singular or group interests would prevail over the general interest of the voters.
Ing. Ramón Appratto Lorenzo.