European Alliance councilor Miloš Mašković has raised concerns about potential malpractices in the city company Putevi d.o.o. in Podgorica, publishing documents that indicate non-transparent and potentially illegal spending of public funds. According to his claims, an employee was reimbursed for expenses he initially financed himself, without clear procedures or evidence justifying such practice. Mašković called on relevant institutions to investigate all aspects of the case, including possible abuse of official position. On the other hand, Putevi d.o.o. denied these allegations, stating that all reimbursements are made in accordance with the law and based on proper documentation, and that the accusations are politically motivated. The company emphasizes that it achieves the best results and that all processes are subject to regular control and audit. This case raises questions about transparency and accountability in the spending of public funds in the local government of Podgorica.
Political Perspectives:
Left: Left-leaning sources emphasize the importance of transparency and accountability in public spending, highlighting the allegations of illegal and non-transparent reimbursements in Putevi d.o.o. They focus on the need for thorough investigations and criticize the local government for lack of response, framing the issue as a matter of public interest and social justice.
Center: Center-leaning sources present a balanced view, reporting both the allegations made by the councilor and the official response from Putevi d.o.o. They stress the importance of due process and legal compliance, noting that the company claims all procedures were lawful and documented. The narrative focuses on the need for clarity and proper investigation without jumping to conclusions.
Right: Right-leaning sources tend to support the official stance of Putevi d.o.o., emphasizing the company’s achievements and efficiency. They often portray the allegations as politically motivated attacks aimed at undermining successful management. The narrative downplays the accusations and highlights the company’s compliance with laws and regulations, suggesting that the claims are attempts to discredit the local government.
