The analysis of governance at the docks of Las Palmas has resulted in a scenario where technical and institutional responsibilities are seriously blurred. The power crisis within the Foundation of the Ports of Las Palmas exposes a breakdown in the chain of command that places the director of the Port Authority, Francisco Ramírez, in a position of calculated media retreat, forcing the president of the organization, Beatriz Calzada, to assume a political wear and tear that, due to ordinary management competencies and process control, should not primarily fall on her.
On page 11 of the Ethical Code of the Ports of Las Palmas, it is noted that ‘we will avoid any unjustified action that generates, or could generate, direct or indirect benefits, as well as favoritism towards third parties, whether they are public or private entities, or specific individuals.’ And a few lines below: ‘We will be accountable for our actions, behaviors, and results, taking on the responsibilities that may arise from our decisions and actions.
The political shield of Beatriz Calzada in the face of technical failure
The corporate behavior guidelines explicitly state that the responsibility and the level of ethical demand are greater the higher the influence in decision-making and the management of public funds. From this viewpoint, the opaque profile maintained by Francisco Ramírez during the Foundation conflict clashes directly with the role assigned to him by the organizational chart. The contracting services, validation of profiles for managerial personnel, and legality control of dependent entities must necessarily pass through the director’s desk before being elevated to the governing bodies, a technical filter whose breakdown or inaction explains the subsequent institutional drift of the entity.
The management of this executive opacity introduces severe contradictions with the Ethical Code of the Port Authority of Las Palmas. In its section on additional responsibilities of executives, the text explicitly requires that high-ranking officials exercise extreme care in regulatory compliance, process management, and, very specifically, the proper manner of representing the Ports of Las Palmas.
The fact that it is the presidency of the Port that acts as a political shield and provides explanations regarding the alleged irregularities of a satellite entity reveals a failure in the technical hierarchy. The general management violates the professionalism and accountability directive by de facto delegating the responsibility of personnel management and managerial suitability that previously passed through its own hands.
The contradiction with good governance
The resolution of this technical leadership vacuum adds a factor of provisionality that affects the core of good governance. The ethical code defines conflicts and privileges as direct risks against institutional integrity, obliging public employees to act with total independence, objectivity, and impartiality.
By avoiding focus on the purification of the Foundation’s structures, management allows the debate to swing towards political confrontation, contravening the duty of exemplarity and efficiency in the administration of resources linked to the entity. The inertia in assuming errors in the contracting processes places the technical leadership in a profound contradiction between the discourse of port excellence and the reality of management that penalizes public trust.
