Vox councilor in Orihuela accuses party of directing municipal funds to a national account
In Orihuela, a clash of accusations unfolded between two Vox councilors after a public dispute over the handling of municipal funds. One councilor, Asunción Aniorte, stated that the party had requested transferring part of the municipal allocation to the national coffers, a proposal that was rejected by party leadership. In response, José Manuel García Escolano, the Vox group spokesperson, insisted that he would not accept these claims. He emphasized that the money allocated by the City Council to Vox should remain under local control until the end of the term, asserting a sense of pride in safeguarding municipal funds for the city’s use.
García Escolano also described Aniorte’s actions as an attempt to gain advantages through a reallocation. He accused Aniorte of aiming to influence the upcoming elections by reallocating resources toward campaign messaging, which he said was not only inappropriate but rejected by him.
During the exchange, Aniorte accused the mayoral candidate Manuel Mestre of insulting behavior and questioned Aniorte’s own inclusion on the Vox candidate list. He implied that Aniorte’s statements were tied to his absence from the Vox lists and warned about the implications for the city’s governance.
Both sides presented their versions of events, with the council saying the funds in question were never meant to be diverted to broader propaganda efforts. They pointed to a year-old payment for a brochure, insisting that it did not involve City Council funds and that the work attributed to the party was carried out by its own staff and collaborators. The dispute centered on how the party claimed to have managed internal finances and who signed off on various expenditures.
The discussion broadened into a critique of activity and accountability within the Vox group. One councilor argued that the other had contributed little to municipal work, contrasting a formal record of meetings, committees, and community engagement with what was described as limited public service. The speech touched on perceived duties, transparency, and the pace of decision-making as the term progressed.
In defending his own conduct, Aniorte said his work for Orihuela involved participating in plenary sessions, committee meetings, boards, and neighborhood outreach. He insisted he had listened to residents and fulfilled responsibilities that were expected of a councilor, contrasting his efforts with assertions about his counterpart’s limited involvement.
Remarks were also directed at the methods used within Vox, with some speakers implying that choices were shaped by alignment with the party’s internal practices, sometimes described as being imposed or recommended by others within the organization. The conversation culminated with a reflection on the term’s end, noting that responsibilities and decisions should have progressed more steadily and that many local concerns, particularly those affecting residents close to Orihuela, merited timely attention.
Overall, the exchange highlighted tensions over governance, resource management, and accountability within Vox, as councilors debated the proper use of municipal funds, the integrity of campaign-related spending, and the role of party leadership in guiding local representation. The discourse underscored the need for clear, transparent procedures to ensure that city resources serve residents effectively and that public officials remain answerable to the people they serve. The outcome of these disputes would shape perceptions of Vox in Orihuela and influence how the party approaches future elections and city affairs.