A report by the Auditor General’s Office of Salta revealed that the Provincial Institute of Indigenous Peoples of Salta (IPPIS) provided grants to people who were not beneficiaries, paid salaries without any legal agreements or contracts and incurred expenses that don’t meet the appropriate regulations, which would only be authorized in exceptional cases. These were just some of the observations made by the auditors.
Within the Institute there are members of very different communities, they receive monthly allowances "to fund transportation costs, health, and education". However, the audit found that there were "contributions given to people who were not on the list of beneficiaries" and important "differences between the amounts designated and granted".
The report shows that in September 2009 there was a beneficiary that although he was authorized a sum of $200, he later received two payments: one for $300 on day 3, and another for $600 on day 18. A woman, which was supposed to receive a total payment of $300 was given $500, while another subsidized man received $100 out of the $300 that originally were assigned to him.
It was also found that "on several occasions, cellular, meals, and transportation expenses were wrongfully justified as salary payment, without every conforming to the rules of ISSIP which only allows this in exceptional and duly proved cases".
The report, which reviews the years 2009 and 2010, shows that there are costs "without any authorization". Some of the findings include a cell phone bill for $2,044.37, three bills for $4,250, $1,255, and $1,020 that supposedly correspond to lunch expenses, one for $1,380 for lodging expenses and a $4,552.60 bill for advertising. These slips are just a few from a long list that include other types of purchases, such as disposable items, electrical supplies, photocopies, and the "festivities of the Pachamama".
As a matter a fact, the watchdog stated in its report, adopted in August 2012, that "of the $50,412 that was spent in February and December 2010, only $10,826 was rendered, leaving $39,586 in a pending state." In addition, "there was a sum of $21,499 in fees that didn’t have the corresponding contracts as to justify the expense."
The auditor’s report also shows that "in 2010 $16,775 were paid in per diem to people who were not employees of the Institute and of which we could not establish any connection with the entity".
For Health and Emergency Assistance "$299,888 and $359,865 were assigned respectively." However, the audit "could not access the documentation for those expenses, because it was never available."
To all these irregularities the auditors add the existence of a "weak internal control system, this being an evident consequence of the accounting department, since in addition to its daily obligations it is also responsible for the staff and the budget of IPPIS." In short, this means that there is nothing that prevents a single sector of the organization to have complete control over a particular process; this would be needed in order to have greater transparency in everything concerning management.
The IPPIS also neglected to note down any “accounting records of the transactions made or any financial statements what so ever."