«Unfounded and attributable to a personal interpretation of the facts». The municipal administration of Messina thus responds to the statements of councilor Marcello Scurria on the Municipality’s decision to appear in the electoral proceedings. At the center of the controversy, the alleged conflict of interests of the administrators and the use of public resources for a defense which, according to the reconstruction of the disputes contained in the note, would have been undertaken to protect the personal positions of the mayor and the members of the council.
The administration rejects this reading and maintains that the appearance in court is aimed at protecting the institutional interest of the organization and the legitimacy of the electoral acts.
The appeal and the position of the Municipality
The contested resolution concerns an appeal requesting the annulment of the proclamation of the elected mayor and of the admission documents of the associated lists. A question which, the administration underlines, could have consequences on the entire result of the municipal elections of 24 and 25 May 2026.
According to the Municipality, the possible acceptance of the appeal would affect the institutional structure of the institution and the continuity of administrative action. The appearance in court would therefore be aimed at supporting the regularity of the electoral procedure, without proposing, “as far as can be seen from the documents”, independent disputes against the appellants. “The interest of the Municipality in protecting its procedural position and the legitimacy of the administrative and electoral acts that concern it does not coincide with the personal interest of the individual administrators in maintaining their office”, specifies the note.
«Conflict of interest is not automatic»
The administration also disputes the possibility of configuring a conflict of interest for the sole fact that the outcome of the judgment could have consequences on the directors in office. The reply recalls the obligation to abstain from deliberations regarding one’s own interests or those of relatives and in-laws up to the fourth degree, while maintaining the need to distinguish the position of the organization from the individual position of those elected.
“The mere fact that the Municipality’s defense could indirectly favor the administrators does not demonstrate, as Scurria claims, that the resolution was adopted in their personal interest”, states the administration. Any coincidence between interests would represent, according to the note, a reflected effect of the dispute.
The power of attorney for the defender and the role of the mayor
Another point of the reply concerns the signing of the power of attorney for litigation by the mayor. The Municipality recalls article 59, paragraph 1, of the Municipal Statute, according to which «the Council decides on active and passive disputes and on transactions», distinguishing the decision to appear in court from the deed by which the power to represent the Organization is granted to the defender.
According to the administration, these are acts with different nature and functions. The note also specifies that the mayor did not participate in the decision to appear in court, “for maximum transparency”.
«Checks are the responsibility of the competent offices»
The administration states that the legitimacy of the resolution and the correctness of the appearance in court can be assessed in the competent bodies, on the basis of the applicable documents and rules.
«It is one thing, however, to submit to the Public Prosecutor’s Office facts that you consider worthy of verification; it is another thing to publicly present the interpretation as if the illegitimacy of the administrators’ conduct had already been ascertained”, concludes the note, reiterating the intention to protect the interest of the Municipality in institutional and judicial settings.