Joint Processing of Extraordinary Credit and Credit Supplement: Procedural Economy and Voting Considerations

Approach

Is it possible to jointly process an extraordinary credit and a credit supplement?

Due to the principle of procedural economy and given that both types of modifications have the same procedure and paperwork, we intend to carry out a single full file. The key would be that two different budget modifications are really being approved, but their processing is joint.

We do not intend to make a single modification, but two, clearly differentiating them within the file. But a single secretariat report, a single intervention report, a single report justifying the opportunity and specificity, etc.

The problem is voting. We assume that they can also be voted together, or would they be voted separately depending on what the proponent or the mayor decides?

Answer

As established by art. 177 of the consolidated text of the Law Regulating Local Treasuries -TRLRHL-, approved by RDLeg 2/2004, of March 5:

• “1. When there is an expense that cannot be delayed until the following year, and there is no credit in the corporation’s budget or the consigned is insufficient or cannot be expanded, the president of the corporation will order the initiation of the extraordinary credit granting file, in the first case, or credit supplement, in the second.

• 2. The file, which will have to be previously informed by the Intervention, will be submitted to the approval of the Plenary of the corporation, subject to the same procedures and requirements as the budgets. The rules on information, claims and publicity of budgets referred to in article 169 of this law will also be applicable.

• 3. If the absence or insufficiency of credit occurs in the budget of an autonomous body, the extraordinary credit file or credit supplement initially proposed by the competent body of the autonomous body to which it corresponds, will be sent to the local entity for its processing in accordance with the provisions of the previous section.

• 4. The file must specify the specific budget item to be increased and the means or resource that will finance the proposed increase.

• Said increase will be financed from the remaining liquid treasury, with new or higher income collected over the totals provided for in the current budget, and through cancellations or cancellations of credits for expenses of other items of the current budget not committed, whose endowments are considered reducible. without disturbance of the respective service. In the file, it will be accredited that the income foreseen in the budget has been made normally, unless those have a finalist character.”

RD 500/1990, of April 20, which develops the first chapter of the sixth title of Law 39/1988, of December 28, regulating Local Treasuries, in terms of budgets, for its part develops the regulation of both figures in their arts. 35 to 38.

These two figures are, therefore, budgetary modifications of a quantitative nature and the difference between them is that, while in the case of extraordinary credits they are granted in order to cover obligations for which no credit had been endowed, the Credit supplements increase credits that had been endowed, but insufficiently. In the rest, its processing is identical, so we would not see any legal inconvenience in processing an extraordinary credit and a credit supplement together in a single file. The voting, being a single file, the logical thing is that it had a joint character.

conclusions

1ª. There is no problem in processing an extraordinary credit and a credit supplement together in a single file.

2ª. In the case of a single file and a single proposal, it was logical that the vote should be single.