To everyone. I greet our dean, Councilor Lourdes Lima, Councilor Cipriano Sabino, Councilor Luiz Cúnia, Vice-President (who is still outside the plenary, but is here now), Councilor Daniela Barbalho. I greet our Attorney General of Accounts, Dr Stanley Bot Fernandes, our substitute councilors, Dr Milene Cunha, good morning.
Dr Daniel Melo, good morning. And Dr Edivaldo, good morning. I greet our Secretary General, Dr Jorge, and the Assistant Secretary, Dr Alan, in whose name I greet all the employees of our Court of Accounts.
With a quorum present, and the worthy representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office present, invoking the protection of God , I declare this ordinary session open. I justify the absence of Councilor Dilon Teixeira and substitute Councilor Chulival Rocha due to force majeure. I submit the minutes of the ordinary session of October 8th to the plenary for deliberation.
Councilor Lures Lima, Councilor Cipriano, Councilor Luiz Cunha, Councilor Daniela Barbalho. I also agree and approve. I inform you that in processes numbered 1 to 2 on the agenda, the responsible parties, interested parties, or attorneys were duly notified for this hearing, and they were assured the right to speak so that they may present oral arguments.
If they are not present or represented, their absences will be recorded in the minutes of this ordinary session. We have no registration for oral arguments , and I request that the agenda be reversed, bringing forward the processes of Councilor Cipriano Sabin, and I request the secretary to begin the agenda. Which is stalled.
It starts with number seven, right? Good morning everyone. Item seven on the agenda is process 009747 of 2022, which deals with the assessment for the purpose of registering the retirement act in favor of Jurandi Gonzaga de Souza.
The rapporteur is His Excellency Councilor Cipriano Sabino. >> With the floor open to the esteemed rapporteur, His Excellency Councillor Cipriano Sabino. >> Thank you very much, Mr President.
Greetings to Your Excellency. Good morning, Mr President. Dr Stanley Bot , Attorney General.
Good morning, Your Excellency. You are always welcome. Senior President Councillor Lurde Lima, always President.
Good morning. Councillor Luiz Cunha, also always President. Good morning, Your Excellency.
Councillor Daniela Barbalho , once dearest. Good work to us all. Councillor, substitute Councillor, Dr Júlival Rocha is not present.
Dr Milene Cunha, our substitute Councillor . Councillor Daniel Melo. Good morning, Your Excellency, Professor Councillor Daniel Edivaldo Souza, good morning, Your Excellency.
Greetings, Mr President, our staff, colleagues, Jorginho, Secretary General, good morning, Your Excellency, Dr Moreira, Undersecretary, and also on behalf of Ana Cláudia Moutinho, I also want to greet all the court staff, thanking them for the support they give us during the sessions, in carrying out the daily work and the sessions. I also want to greet Regional Unit One in Santarém, Regional Unit Two in Marabá , all the lawyers who follow the daily work, regardless of whether they have a case or not, the internet users who follow the session, and thank you, obviously, for your audience. Mr President, let's move on to the cases.
I thank Your Excellency for granting the change of agenda and my fellow council members. The process concerns the assessment of the legality, for registration purposes, of the retirement of Jurandi Gonzaga de Souza, in the position of special level one teacher, belonging to the staff of the State Secretariat of Education (Seduc), substantiated in Ordinance 1785, of June 23, 2021, published in the Official Gazette of the State on July 9 , 2021. Initially, the Secretariat of External Control and the Public Prosecutor's Office, represented by Dr Stanley Bot, expressed their opinion in favor of granting the registration with the suggestion of notifying the interested party so that, if desired, she may claim the 10%increase in the service time bonus, focusing on the provisions of the sole paragraph of article 36 of state law 5351 of 1986 and article 2 of constitutional amendment 77/2019.
In light of this, the case file was remanded for further investigation so that GEPS could correct the percentage of ATS ( Additional Time of Service) from 60%to 70%, or pass it on, explaining the reasons for not doing so. In compliance with this investigation, the act was revised, resulting in the issuance of a new decree, now number 2069, on August 4, 2026, published in the state's official gazette on August 19, 2026, which altered the percentage of additional time of service from 60%to 70%. CESEX, in a supplementary report, acknowledged compliance with the investigation and recommended approval of the registration of the act.
However , it was noted that Ordinance 26926 did not expressly indicate the legal basis that led to the increase in the ATS ( Additional Time Service), recommending that Article 36, sole paragraph, of Law 5351 of 1986 be added to the act, without the need to forward a new act to this court. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Accounts, in a new opinion, considering that the diligence was duly fulfilled by IGEPS, opined favorably on the registration of the act. However, it also considered, or rather understood, that it is also necessary to supplement the legal basis by means of an endorsement with the express indication of the article, the sole paragraph of Article 36 of Law 5351 of 1986 and also Article 2 of Constitutional Amendment 77/2019 of the State of Pará.
This is the report. Mr President, >> I give the floor to His Excellency the Attorney General of Accounts, Dr Stanley Bot Fernandes. Your >> Excellency, Mr President, Councilor Fernando Ribeiro, I would like to greet Your Excellency, and also our dean of the court, Councilor Lourdes Lima.
I would also like to greet our eminent Councilor, rapporteur of this process, Councilor Cipriano Sabino, and the vice-president of the court, Councilor Luiz Cunha. I would also like to greet our Councilor Daniela Barbalho. Good morning.
I would like to greet the substitute councilors, Dr Milene, Dr Daniel, and Dr Edivaldo. I would also like to greet the secretary, and also the deputy secretary, Dr Jorge, Dr Lana, and all the staff present here. Mr President, the opinion of the Public Prosecutor's Office is already in the records, both in this process and in the other processes on the agenda, and it is not necessary to add a new opinion at this time.
Thank you, Mr President. Thank you, >> Dr Stanley. Thank you, Dr Stanley.
It puts the matter up for discussion. If no one wishes to discuss, I return the floor to the distinguished rapporteur to deliver his vote. >> Considering that the irregularity pointed out during the investigation was duly remedied by the social security agency, through the revision of the act and adjustment of the percentage of the seniority bonus, exactly as determined by this Court of Accounts, adding a new ordinance, which changed the percentage from 60%to 70%of the bonus, which will obviously improve the retiree's income.
And I am very happy when this happens, because a court decision ends up improving, let's say, even if only a little, the life of this employee or, in other cases, this employee. However, as observed by both the TEC unit and the Public Prosecutor's Office, although the change was effectively made, the act did not expressly state the legal provision that justified the increase in the seniority bonus. It is therefore necessary to indicate the legal basis that is included in the records to provide, obviously, all clarity, legality, and motivation for the change made.
It is very important to make it clear why this happened. In light of the above, I consider the retirement process to be in accordance with the law. The President hereby orders the registration, as established in Ordinance 2069 of August 4, 2026, published in the Official Gazette of the State on August 19, 2026, which ratified Ordinance 1785 of June 23, 2021, based on Article 34, paragraph 2, sole paragraph, and Article 35 of the Organic Law of the Court of Accounts, in conjunction with Article 109, paragraph 1, of the Internal Regulations of the Court of Accounts of the State of Pará.
It further orders the notification of the Institute of Social Security Management and Protection of the State of Pará so that it may, through an endorsement (as suggested by the Public Prosecutor's Office), supplement the legal basis of the act supporting the 10%increase in the ATS, expressly including the sole paragraph of Article 36 of Law 5351 of 1986, and Article 2 of the State Constitutional Amendment. 77/2019, without the need to send it back to the Court. So, Mr President, for the record, with these determinations to expressly state the reasons that caused this change.
That is my vote, Mr President. >> I ask the female council members, Mr Councilor, if there are any dissenting votes. If there are none, I also agree with the rapporteur for the approval of the registration, since all the determinations in the previous process have been met and with notification to the GEPS for the change for the registration by endorsement of the supplementary reasons for the change in the percentage of the bonus.
And I request the secretary to proceed with the agenda. >> Item 8 on the agenda is process 010710 of 2024, which deals with the accountability of the funding agreement signed by the Brazilian Unipo Federation of Gilgits, with Mr Frontin Cunha as the responsible party. And the rapporteur is His Excellency Councilor Cipriano Sabino.
>> Greetings to Councilor Rosa Egídia, and I grant the floor to the esteemed rapporteur, His Excellency Councilor Cipriano Sabino. >> Likewise, Mr President, greetings to our president, always President Councilor Rosa Egídia. Good morning, Your Excellency.
Mr President, this concerns the accountability process for the funding agreement 003/2019, which was made between the Cultural Foundation of the State of Pará and the NIPO-Brazilian Jitsu Federation. The responsibility for the agreement rested with Mr Frontim Cunha, president at the time. The value of the agreement was R $ 100,000, without any financial counterpart, and its purpose was to hold the first Northeast Pará State Jiu-Jitsu Championship in 2019, valid from September 30, 2019 to November 5, 2019.
Initially, the External Control Secretariat and the Public Prosecutor's Office for Accounts opined that the accounts were irregular , ordering the return of the full amount of the transferred funds, due to the absence of supporting documents for the expenses incurred and the lack of demonstration of the causal link between the bank financial transactions and, obviously, the object of the agreed-upon agreement. In the judgment session, after the oral arguments presented by the responsible party's defense, as well as the presentation of documentation. .
. it was then determined that the procedural instruction would be reopened based on the constitutional principles of the right to a full defense and, obviously, the presentation of the right to reply, as stipulated in Article 66 of the Internal Regulations of the State Court of Accounts. Supporting this, after the analysis, justification, and documentation presented by the responsible party, the External Control Secretariat, in its supplementary report, as well as the Public Prosecutor's Office for Accounts, represented by Dr Stanley Bot, in a supplementary opinion, modified their previous understandings and thus began to opine on the regularity of the accounts.
This is the report, Mr President. >> I open the matter for discussion. If no one wishes to discuss, I return the floor to the rapporteur, Lu, to deliver his vote.
>> The importance of strengthening and supporting the right to a full defense is the adversarial process. The defense's statement here in the plenary , presenting documents, could completely modify the decision regarding this process, which was deemed irregular upon its return. After all this, the report has been presented , considering, Mr President, that the documentation now in the records, the defense has presented proof and that the object of the agreement was achieved, as no prejudice to the public purpose or damage to the public treasury was verified.
Yes, Mr President. Confirming all this, I want to present to the plenary the judgment of regular accounts in the Funding Agreement 003/29, and the responsibility of Mr Frontin Cunha, president at the time of the NIPO-Brazilian Federation of Jitos, under the terms of article 56, item 1, of the Organic Law of the Court of Accounts, combined with article 158, item 1, of the Internal Regulations of the Court of Accounts. So, Mr President, this is my vote.
Regular accounts. >> I ask the female council members, Mr Council Member, if there are any dissenting votes. If there are none, I also concur with the rapporteur on regular accounts and request the secretary to proceed with the agenda.
Item one on the agenda is process 02312 of 2024, which deals with the reconsideration appeal filed by the State Public Foundation Hospital de Clínicas Gaspar Viana. The rapporteur is Her Excellency Council Member Lurdes Lima. The floor is yours, >> distinguished rapporteur.
Her Excellency Council Member Lourdes Lima. My special good morning again to Your Excellency, Dr Fernando Ribeiro, our worthy president. Also, good morning to our Attorney General of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Accounts, Dr Stanley Bote.
My good morning to our former presidents, always president, Dr Cipriano Sabino de Oliveira Júnior , Dr Luís da Cunha, Ms. Rosa Crispino Calheiros Lopes, and I also greet our new council member, Ms. Daniela Barbalho.
Greetings to our substitute advisors, Dr Milene Cunha, Dr Edivaldo Souza, and Dr Daniel. I don't see Dr Julival or Dr Odilon here. So I would also like to greet Dr Jorge Batista and Dr Alan, all our staff members of this Court of Accounts, of the other Public Prosecutor's Office of Accounts, and all the people who are following us through digital platforms.
Today is a bit difficult, isn't it? I already told number one, that he was already connected. Jorginho, when you told me, that's why I'm not seeing it, I'm waiting now.
So, but next time, God willing, it will be there. Mr President, I would like to ask Your Excellency to remove it from the agenda and return it later, as >> approved by Your Excellency. Now tell Mr José that he can watch it.
The video will be on YouTube soon. >> Yes, I told him, I told him that he must >> not miss a single chapter at all. >> Approved for him.
Your Excellency, having removed this item from the agenda, I request that the secretary proceed with the agenda. Item two on the agenda is process 014406 of 2022, which deals with the special audit initiated at the Associação Polo Produtivo para Fábrica Esperança, as a result of a determination contained in agreement 62989 of 2022, with Mr Eduardo Henrique Anselmo Carvalho and Mr Marcos Wagner Fonseca Lopes listed as responsible parties. The rapporteur is Her Excellency Substitute Councilor Milene Cunha, with a request for review submitted by Her Excellency Councilor Rosa Egídia.
I grant the floor to the author of the review vote, Councilor Rosa Egídia. Good morning, Mr President. Greetings to Your Excellency , our Attorney General of Accounts, Dr Sanley Fernandes, my colleagues, Councilor Lourdes Lima, Councilor Cipriano Sabino, Councilor Luís Cúnia , Councilor Daniela Barbalho, our substitute councilors, Dr Milene, Dr Edivaldo, Dr Daniel, and our secretary Jorge and undersecretary Alan.
I greet all of those who are present here in the plenary, as well as those who are joining us from a virtual distance. Mr President, I have been informed regarding process number two that there was not enough time to notify the interested party. Therefore, I request that Your Excellency remove it from the agenda.
>> With Your Excellency's permission, I request that the secretary proceed with the agenda. >> Item three on the agenda is process 024199 of 2025, which deals with the special audit initiated by the State Secretariat of Education regarding transfers from state school transportation and school meal programs contracted by the municipality of Santana do Araguaia, with Mr José Rodrigues de Miranda and Mr Eduardo Alves Conte listed as responsible parties. The rapporteur is Her Excellency Councilor Rosa Egí.
The floor is yours, >> esteemed rapporteur, Her Excellency Councilor Rosa Egí. Thank you, Madam President. I was also informed a short while ago that during the course of the process, a request was made for the appointment of a new lawyer, who also requested the postponement of the judgment of this process.
Therefore, I ask Your Excellency, accepting the request of the new lawyer, to remove it from the agenda for the Defense, and I request that the Secretary >> proceed with the agenda. >> Item four on the agenda is case number 6487 of 2026, which deals with the reconsideration appeal filed by Hel Socorro de Araújo Silva. The rapporteur is Her Excellency, Substitute Councilor Milenic.
The floor is now yours, >> esteemed rapporteur. Her Excellency, Substitute Councilor Milene Cunha. >> Good morning, Mr President.
Good morning, Dr Stanley, Attorney General of Accounts. Good morning, councilors, my fellow substitute councilors. I hope you all had an excellent day.
Good morning also to Dr Jorginho and Dr Alan. Good morning to those present at this session and to those who are joining us virtually. The process concerns appeals for reconsideration filed by Ms.
Helen Socorro de Araújo Silva against ruling 69. 105 of this court, which found her accounts irregular, ordered the return of R $ 140,753. 98, and imposed a fine of R $ 1,344.
36. The appealed ruling pointed out that the appellant obtained a leave of absence for professional development from March 10, 2014, to December 22, 2015, remaining absent from her duties for 1 year, 9 months, and 12 days. However, on December 22, 2015, she requested resignation from her position without providing the corresponding service for the same period of absence, which led to the charge.
In light of this, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing, in summary, the occurrence of intercurrent prescription due to the paralysis of the process for a period exceeding 3 years between 2018 and 2021, without any act capable of interrupting the prescriptive period; the absence of actual damage to the public treasury, arguing that the leave for professional development achieved its purpose and that the knowledge acquired in the doctorate continued to benefit public education in Pará, even through her work at the Federal University of Pará ; the absence of bad faith, malice, personal gain, or an antonymically illegal and illegitimate management act , arguing that the non-compliance with the consideration provided for in Article 46 of Law 5351 would constitute a mere formal irregularity and, subsidiarily, the possibility of providing service for a period equivalent to the leave for professional development as a form of reparation for the breach of the legal obligation. The appeal was admitted by the original reporting member and the case file was assigned to this reporting member. Subsequently, the documents were forwarded to the Fifth Accounts Management Control Office, which, in its technical report, recommended that the appeal be acknowledged but not granted.
The Ministry of Pontas expressed a similar opinion. The case file was then submitted for review. This is the report.
I am now >> opening the matter for discussion. If no one wishes to discuss it, the floor is returned to the esteemed rapporteur for her proposed decision. >> Just a moment while I try to open this.
Regarding admissibility: I find that the appeal meets its requirements, therefore I acknowledge the present appeal for reconsideration. Regarding the preliminary issue of intercurrent prescription: The appellant argues that intercurrent prescription has occurred, claiming that between November 6, 2018, the date cited as corresponding to the last procedural act, and December 14, 2021, when the first subsequent procedural act allegedly occurred, 3 years, 1 month, and 8 days elapsed without any actions capable of interrupting the statute of limitations . The claim, however, does not deserve acceptance for the following reasons.
Initially, it is important to highlight that the statute of limitations begins with a five-year period, since, according to the heading of article 2 of resolution 19. 503, punitive and compensatory claims prescribe in 5 years, counted from the initial terms indicated in article 4, as applicable in each case. In the present case, the statute of limitations began on December 22, 2015, which is the date of knowledge of the irregularity, according to article 4, paragraph 4 of the resolution.
From that date, the five-year period was successively interrupted by the notification of the responsible party on March 16, 2016; by the initiation of the special audit on May 7, 2018; and by the preparation of this Court's technical report, on November 7, 2022, restarting the counting of the term in its entirety after each interrupting event, as per article 5, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned resolution. Therefore, the full 5-year period has not elapsed, which is necessary for the statute of limitations for punitive or compensatory claims to have expired. Regarding the statute of limitations during the course of proceedings, the appellant is also incorrect, because, according to article eight of the aforementioned resolution, the statute of limitations during the course of proceedings applies if the process remains paralyzed, pending judgment, order, or statement for more than 3 years after the occurrence of the first unequivocal act of investigation of the fact foreseen in item 2 of paragraph 5 of article 5.
Therefore, the three-year period only began to be counted after the date of the preliminary report prepared by the technical unit of this court on November 7, 2022. From then on , no period of paralysis exceeding 3 years was identified, given that acts of regular continuation of the proceedings were carried out, among which the citation of the responsible party on October 19, 2023, and the pronouncement of the appealable conviction decision on January 29, 2026 , stand out. Thus, neither the intercurrent prescription nor the five-year prescription on the merits was consummated.
On the merits, the appellant argues the non-existence of damages to the public treasury on the grounds that the damage could not be presumed and that the absence of consideration after the removal would not have caused actual damage to the state. In addition, it argues the non-existence of bad faith, fraud, and illicit enrichment, highlighting the possibility of late fulfillment of the obligation through the provision of services. Installment payment of the debt and, subsidiarily, reclassification of the irregularity as being of a formal nature.
However, these allegations are not admissible for the following reasons. Firstly, Article 46 of State Law 5351 of 1986 establishes, as a condition for granting paid leave for professional development, the obligation for the employee to provide service to their original agency for a period equivalent to the leave, under penalty of full reimbursement of expenses incurred by the state. This is, therefore, a legal obligation, expressly associated with the benefit granted, intended to ensure that the administration receives a functional return corresponding to the investment made in the employee's qualification.
In this specific case, the appellant enjoyed leave for professional development at the state's expense from March 2014 to December 2015 to pursue a doctoral degree, regularly receiving her remuneration during the leave. However, after the conclusion of her leave, she did not return to CEDUC to provide services for the equivalent period, since she was dismissed at her own request on December 22, 2015, due to her approval for the position of adjunct professor at the Federal University of Pará. In this context, it is not a matter of presuming the occurrence of damage to the public treasury.
The loss arises objectively from the non-compliance with the legally imposed consideration. On the one hand, the state bore the employee's salary during the period of paid leave. On the other hand, it did not receive the corresponding functional return required by article 46 of State Law 5351.
There is, therefore, a direct correspondence between the public resources spent during the leave and the obligation of reimbursement arising from its non-observance. In a second analysis, the fact that the appellant took up a teaching position at the Federal University does not fulfill an obligation foreseen in state legislation, because, although the activity carried out at the Federal Institution may represent professional use of the qualification obtained, the rule expressly requires the provision of service at the originating institution, so that any benefit provided to another public entity does not replace the compensation due to CEDUC, which financially supported the leave. Similarly, the obligation to reimburse is not conditional on demonstrating intent, bad faith, illicit enrichment, or misuse of funds.
It arises directly from the non-compliance with the condition established in article 46 of the state law, and proof that there was paid leave funded by the State, without the subsequent provision of service for the legally required period, is sufficient for this purpose. In a third analysis, the claim of the non-existence of a harmful management act also fails, since the irregularity examined does not stem from a commissive management act, but from the non-compliance with a specific legal obligation linked to the enjoyment of paid leave. In this regard , the jurisprudence of this court is clear in recognizing that the failure to return to the originating body after paid leave for professional development gives rise to reimbursement of the amounts corresponding to the period of absence, as pointed out in ruling 515 of 2023 of this court.
And from there I bring here other precedents. Regarding the claim to subsequently provide services or to convert the debt into an obligation to perform, the legal impossibility of these acts is highlighted, since the consideration foreseen in article 46 presupposes a return to the originating body after the end of the leave, for a period equivalent to the absence, with the appellant's voluntary resignation on December 22, 2015. The functional link with CEDUC was extinguished, making it impossible to fulfill the obligation in the manner established by law.
Furthermore, reclassifying the irregularity as merely formal is not appropriate, since the conduct produced an effective patrimonial impact by frustrating the consideration that constituted the basis for the State's funding of the paid leave. A judgment of regularity with reservations presupposes the existence of impropriety or a formal deficiency that does not result in damage to the public treasury. Finally, the claim of financial impossibility for the full and immediate payment of the debt does not interfere with the characterization of the irregularity, nor with the existence of the duty to reimburse, and may be considered, when applicable, only in the definition of the form of collection or installment payment before the competent body.
Therefore, I understand that no elements capable of dismissing the irregularity and the consequent damage recognized in ruling 69. 105, 105, have been presented, for which reason I propose that the appeal be acknowledged and, on the merits, that the appeal be denied, maintaining the appealed ruling in its entirety, and that the appellant be notified. This is the proposal, Mr President, honorable councilors.
I >> ask the honorable councilors if there are any dissenting votes. If there are none, I also agree with the rapporteur in acknowledging and denying the appeal and maintaining the previous ruling in its entirety. I request the secretary to proceed with the agenda.
>> Item five on the agenda is process 02084 of 2022, which deals with the assessment for registration purposes of the retirement act in favor of Maria da Conceição Xavier Fonseca. The rapporteur is Her Excellency Councilor Limica. The floor is yours, >> esteemed rapporteur.
Her Excellency Councilor Lourdes Lima. >> Good morning, Your Excellency Mr President. I also greet our dear Dr Rosa Egídia, who arrived later, and Dr Daniela has already been greeted by this colleague of theirs.
Let's proceed to the documents. This concerns the assessment of the legality, for registration purposes, of the retirement act in favor of Maria da Conceição Xavier Fonseca, in the position of special class level one teacher, belonging to the staff of the State Secretariat of Education (Seduc), substantially based on Ordinance number 2772, of June 17, 2022, published in the Official Gazette number 35,040, on July 11, 2022. In the initial instruction, the personnel and pensions controller, CPP, document 19, pointed out the need to correct the seniority bonus, ATS.
The other Public Prosecutor's Office, document 22, in its first statement, also considered the prior rectification of the act necessary, notably regarding the percentage of the ATS. In a ruling, document 24, this rapporteur ordered the GEPS to take the measures indicated by the CPP and also by the other Public Prosecutor's Office. Following the investigative procedures and repeated inquiries, the Institute forwarded Official Letter number 1301, dated 2026 , from the Office of the President of GEPS, accompanied by a technical opinion, a new calculation of service time, a calculation spreadsheet, and the revised decree number 2035, dated July 30, 2026, published in the Official Gazette of the State of Pará.
Decree number 36,721, of August 6, 2026 , which raised the seniority bonus from 60 percent up to 65 percent. In supplementary instruction, the CPP, document 44, acknowledged the fulfillment of the diligence and opined in favor of granting the registration of the rectifying Ordinance number 2772 , of 20, of the EH, together with the rectifying Ordinance number 2035, of 2026. It also suggested the clarification, through an erratum, of article 131, paragraph one, item 9, actually, item 9, not item 11, of State Law 5810, of 1994, combined with article 36, sole paragraph, of State Law 5351, of 1986.
The legal basis for the revision act requires the submission of a new act to this court. The other Public Prosecutor's Office, through its supplementary opinion, document 47, expressed its opinion in favor of granting the registration of the retirement act with the revision promoted by the revision order number 2035 of 2026, also suggesting a recommendation to the GEPS (Executive Management and Planning Committee) to explicitly state, with due publicity, the aforementioned legal provisions in the legal basis of the revision act, as it is a merely formal adjustment. This is the report, Mr President, Councilors, and ladies, I >> open the matter for discussion.
If no one wishes to discuss, return the floor to the distinguished rapporteur to deliver her vote. In light of the foregoing and considering the opinions expressed by the Personnel and Pensions Control Office, as well as by the Public Prosecutor's Office, I hereby approve the registration of the retirement act in favor of Maria da Conceição Xavier Fonseca, in the position of teacher, special class level one, belonging to the staff of SEDUC, based on decree number 2772 of 7/06/2022, published in the Official Gazette under number 35. 040 0, of 11/07/2022, having been revised by the review decree number 2035 of July 30, 2026, published in the Official Gazette under number 36.
721 1721, of August 8, 2026. We recommend to IGEPS that it clarify, through an erratum with due publicity of the legal basis, the review decree number 2035 of 2026. Article 131, paragraph 1, item 11, of State Law 5810 of 1994, combined with article 36, sole paragraph, of State Law 5300 151 of 1986, is sufficient, as there is no need for the issuance and submission of a new granting act to this Court of Accounts, since it is a merely formal adjustment.
That is my vote, Mr President, Councilors. >> I ask the honorable councilors if there are any votes that remain in dissent today. If there are none, I also concur with the rapporteur in granting the registration of the commendation to IGEPS.
And I request the Secretary to proceed with the agenda. >> Item 6 on the agenda is process 01634 of 2022, which deals with the assessment for the purpose of registering the retirement act in favor of Mirian Augusta de Oliveira e Silva. The rapporteur is Her Excellency Councilor Lures Lima.
With the floor open to the esteemed rapporteur, Her Excellency Councilor Lourdes Lima. Thank you very much, Mr President. This concerns the assessment of the legality, for registration purposes, of the retirement act in favor of Miriam Augusta de Oliveira e Silva, in the position of education specialist, class of, belonging to the staff of the State Secretariat of Education (SEDUC), substantiated in Ordinance number 1338, of July 1, 2020, published in the Official Gazette under number 34,277, on July 10, 2020.
Initially, the Personnel and Pensions Control Office, CPPEA 24, expressed its opinion in favor of granting the registration of the act, recommending the inclusion of the functional level of the base salary through an erratum or rectifying decree and suggesting notification of the interested party so that, if desired, she may request a review of the base salary. The other Public Prosecutor's Office, document 28, in turn, opined in favor of granting the registration with prior correction of the base salary, in accordance with the readjustment legislation applicable to the teaching profession. Order.
Document 31. This rapporteur ordered the return of the case file to IGEPS for further investigation to take the necessary steps to adjust the base salary. After reiteration of the investigation, the institute reported compliance with the order and made the adjustment, subsequently forwarding the corrective order number 1634 of July 1, 2026, published in the Official Gazette under number 36,713 of July 29, 2026.
In a supplementary report, document 56, the CPP ratified the previous opinion and recommended granting the registration of the retirement act, noting the fulfillment of the investigation and recommending the inclusion of the functional progression level for the interested party. Another Public Prosecutor's Office, document 59, in its concluding statement, considered the previously mentioned reservation to be overcome and opined in favor of granting the registration of the retirement act in favor of Miriam Augusta de Oliveira e Silva, as established in the rectifying order. First, in the first order number 1338 of July 1, 2020, with the changes made by the rectifying order number 1634 of July 1, 2026.
This is the report. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen councilors, I >> open the matter for discussion. If no one wishes to discuss, I return the floor to the distinguished rapporteur to deliver her vote.
In light of the foregoing and considering the opinions expressed by the Personnel and Pensions Control Office, as well as by the Public Prosecutor's Office, I hereby approve the registration of the retirement act in favor of Miriam Augusta de Oliveira Silva, in the position of education specialist, class [missing class number], belonging to the SEGDUC staff, as substantiated in the first decree number 1338, of July 1 , 2020, published in the Official Gazette number 34,277, on July 10, 2020 , with the amendments made by the rectifying decree number 1634, of July 1, 2026, published in the Official Gazette under number 36,713, of July 29 , 2026. We recommend to IGEPS the inclusion, through an erratum, of the functional level in which the interested party was retired. Without needing to review the act again before this Court of Accounts, in accordance with the opinions of the Personnel and Pensions Control Office, as well as the other Public Prosecutor's Office of Accounts.
This is my vote, Mr President, female councilors, gentlemen councilors. I ask the female councilor, gentlemen councilors, if there are any dissenting votes. If there are none, I also concur with the rapporteur in granting the registration with a recommendation to IGEPS regarding the correction by endorsement of the employee's remuneration, and I request the secretary to proceed with the agenda.
>> The item on the agenda is process 015 233 of 2023, which deals with the assessment for registration purposes of the act of admission of temporary personnel carried out by the State Secretariat of Education. The rapporteur is Her Excellency Substitute Councilor Milene Cunha. >> The floor is now given to Her Excellency Substitute Councilor Milene Cunha.
In this process, the technical unit concluded that the registration should be granted, considering the formal regularity of the admissions and the need to maintain the continuity of the educational service. It highlighted that the most constitutionally appropriate solution for replenishing the CEDUC's staff is through a public competitive examination and suggested issuing a directive. The Ministry of Accounts, in a preliminary statement, opined in favor of granting the admission of the teaching professionals and against registering the admission of the cafeteria workers.
Regarding the latter, it understood that the hirings do not clearly fall under any of the hypotheses of exceptional public interest, and are intended for the performance of ordinary and permanent activities within state schools. The case file was then submitted for review . I am now >> opening the matter for discussion.
If no one wishes to discuss it, I will return the floor to the esteemed rapporteur for her proposed decision. Let me address only the controversial point concerning the hiring of the cafeteria workers, given that the hiring of the teachers is not a subject of controversy in this process. Well, I bring here precedents from this court and also the applicable legislation regarding the hiring of teachers that allows for fixed-term contracts to address exceptional situations.
I also verify whether it is legally possible to grant registration for the hiring of school lunch workers, provided that the act is supported by the applicable constitutional and legal requirements and duly justified by the public administration. The jurisprudence of this court admits the registration of hiring acts for the position of school lunch worker, including on a temporary basis, when the need for exceptional public interest is evident, especially in cases where the hiring is indispensable to the continuity of educational services. In this sense, agreements 64.
000, 63. 912 and 62. 767.
631 recognize the possibility of granting registration, particularly in situations related to indigenous education, where the shortage of professionals, the difficulty of regular staffing, and the need to maintain school activities justify the exceptional measure. Thus, in light of the aforementioned precedents, it is concluded that the registration of the hiring of a school lunch lady may be granted when the relevant legal requirements are met, notably the proof of administrative necessity, adequate justification of the act, compatibility with the legal regime of admission, and observance of the public interest, with registration being granted in duly justified exceptional situations. Finally, it is essential to observe the maximum legal term for temporary hiring , limited to 3 years, to avoid the perpetuation of exceptional circumstances and to guarantee compliance with the principle of public competition.
Regarding the determinations suggested by the technical unit and the Public Prosecutor's Office, there is no need to reiterate them as they have already been issued in rulings 60,675 and 60,676. Given the above, I propose granting the registrations. This is the proposal.
Mr President, honorable council members, >> I ask the honorable council members if there are any dissenting votes. In the absence of further issues, I also concur with the rapporteur regarding the approval of the registrations and request that the Secretary proceed with the agenda. Item 10 on the agenda is process 015242 of 2023, which deals with the assessment for registration purposes of the act of admitting temporary personnel carried out by the State Secretariat of Education.
Rapporteur: Substitute Councilor Milene Cunha. The floor is now yours, >> esteemed rapporteur, Her Excellency Substitute Councilor Milene Cunha. In this process, the technical unit expressed its opinion in favor of approving the registration, with instructions to Ceplade to present a plan aimed at holding a public competition.
The Public Prosecutor's Office also opined in favor of approving the registrations and recommended that this court, within the scope of the analysis of the annual management accounts of CEDUC, carry out the initial monitoring of the policy for replenishing the permanent staff. The case file was then submitted for review. Report.
Mr President, >> I am putting the matter up for discussion. If no one wishes to discuss , I return the floor to the distinguished rapporteur for her proposed decision. >> Mr President, honorable council members, I will also not read the entire proposal, given that this process is similar to numerous others that have already passed through this plenary.
And I continue in line with the approval of the registration and accept the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor's Office, against the referral to the External Control Secretariat (CESSEX) of this Court, so that, within the scope of the instruction and analysis of the future annual management accounts of the State Secretariat of Education, it may monitor the measures aimed at replenishing the effective staff of that department, verifying, especially, the holding of the public competition for the filling of permanent positions, the appointment of approved candidates in sufficient quantity for the gradual replacement of temporary employees in current contracts, and the adoption of measures aimed at reducing the need for new temporary hires. That is the proposal. >> I ask the honorable council members if there are any dissenting votes.
I also agree with the rapporteur regarding the approval of the registrations with the recommendation of >> Dação to CESEX, to CESX. And I request from you: well, with the agenda of processes concluded, we have administrative matters for distribution , which at the end of this session will be sent to Your Excellencies 'corporate emails. The proposal is to extend for an equal period, that is, 2 years, the validity period of public competition number 1 of 2024, held during the administration of Councillor Rosa Egídia, starting from December 4, 2026.
By December, we will be calling all those approved for the remaining vacancies, which was delayed due to the incorporation of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Accounts, when we had to adapt the structure, aiming at the use of the effective workforce, mainly from that institution, incorporated administratively and financially, preserving all prerogatives and functional autonomy, but administratively and financially incorporated into our Court of Accounts . So, we will be calling all approved candidates until December, filling any remaining vacancies, with the possibility of another 2 years for the call-up of those on the reserve list. This, of course, will be the responsibility of the administration that succeeds us.
The matter will be available to Your Excellencies, with deliberation scheduled for the next ordinary session. I also inform you that the agenda for the 10th virtual plenary session of the 2026 fiscal year has been published, beginning at 12:00 PM on October 19th and ending at 12:00 PM on October 23rd. I emphasize that 215 cases will be considered in this session.
Finally, I inform Your Excellencies about the launch of the Information Technology Bulletin, a new communication channel of the Information Technology Secretariat, ACETIM, with a monthly digital edition that will disseminate actions, deliverables, and news about IT at the TCE Pará, as well as news from the technological landscape. Of course, the newsletter is part of the Mais TI project, which already includes a magazine and Mais TI meetings, all digital, with the purpose of bringing digital transformation closer to people . I invite everyone to read and learn about these tools with useful guidance for work and personal life.
Access and enjoy. And I congratulate the entire Cetina team, especially Dr Leda Monteiro, who is present here at our session. I would also like to inform you about our second journalism award from the TCE Paral.
The TCE will launch it next Thursday, October 15th, at 5 pm , in the Conselheira Eva Anderson Pinheiro Noble Hall. The second one, where is the Noble Hall? Where?
Oh, yes . Sorry. Uh, because everything here is under construction, so I thought something would already be finished.
Anyway, uh, uh, the institution's second journalism award, which has as its theme "TCE Pará strengthens transparency and social control with the Citizen PAF. " The award encourages the production of journalistic content that promotes knowledge and reflection on the importance of the social foundation and the social function of the oversight body, with an emphasis on improving the monitoring and application of state public resources in inducing good public policies. New to this edition is the inclusion of the university journalism category.
Registration is free and must be completed between October 16th and December 10th, 2026. The final results are expected on January 15th, 2027, and will be published on the court's website and social media. Before giving the floor to the plenary, I would like to propose a vote of congratulations to the IRB, which, if I'm not mistaken, celebrated its anniversary yesterday, in the person of Councilor Inaldo, our current president.
This institution, by the way, was initiated at an event of the Public Prosecutor's Offices here in our capital in 1973. From what I saw in a, in a retrieval of memory, I believe with the participation of artificial intelligence, uh, at our Peace Theater, at the time, an event where the Rui Barbosa Institute was established. So it's 73, 50 years, 53 years, 53 years of the Rui Barbosa Institute.
So, I would like to suggest that we send to Councilor Inaldo, our dear current president, uh congratulations and wishes for much success and much work in favor of the Brazilian external control of this institution. Uh, uh, I imagine everyone approves. I ask for acclamation along with the Public Prosecutor's Office of Accounts and our substitute councilors, you understand?
And I place the floor at the disposal of the plenary. Mr >> President, >> not as a councilor, but >> simply to associate myself with your proposal. The IRB, in its 53 years, has been one of the main contributors to scientific research for our Courts of Accounts.
It is a source of pride to be part of the IRB's board and deserves only praise. From its first president to the current president, Dr Inaldo, the IRB has only delivered positive results that greatly assist our national courts of accounts in evolving . Furthermore, I would also like to congratulate Your Excellency, the presidency of this court, on the new edition of the Journalism Award and the >> Vasel Award, which was >> initiated during my administration, but guided by Dr Mara, our head of communication, who had the idea and suggested it to me.
Exactly. It is always our team that assists us with positive ideas, and this has only enhanced our court. So, congratulations , Dr Mara, on the new event, and I also want to congratulate Dr Lida Monteiro and the information technology team of our court.
This bulletin originated during Dr Lurdes Lima's administration, went through several editions during my administration, and now a monthly publication will also be very positive and is certainly a good practice that can influence other Courts of Accounts. So, congratulations , Dr Leda, congratulations to your entire team, brilliant. Thank you, President of Araçoí.
>> Thank you, Councilor Rosa Egídia. With nothing further to discuss, thanking everyone for their presence and participation, and invoking God's protection, I declare this ordinary session closed.
