With What It Spent Renting Trucks, Urban Hygiene Could Have Purchased More Than 20 Vehicles
<p>It is the calculation made by the Audit of the City of Buenos Aires in a 2007 report on the agency providing the service of waste collection in Liniers, Villa Lugano, Mataderos, part of Soldati, Flores and Villa Luro. Moreover, the persistence of irregularities recorded since 2000, as the EHU works with a law that was not yet regulated was detected.</p>
Of the 59 vehicles that were part of the fleet Entity of Urban Hygiene (EHU) until December 31, 2007, 30 did not belong to the city government and were leased to the company Provincia Leasing SA. The Auditor General of the City of Buenos Aires (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) produced a report in which it calculated that with the money spent in renting trucks and spare parts, the EHU could have bought 24 trucks Ford Cargo 1722 compactor or 34 units of the model 1721 also compactor.
"The Head of Government has not prioritized capitalization in fixed assets," said the AGCBA and beyond the trucks, it added that there is no special equipment to scan or vehicles that collect hazardous waste.
The EHU under the Ministry of Public Space provides the service of collecting solid waste in areas that correspond with the Centers for Management and Participation 8 and 9, that is, the Buenos Aires neighborhoods of Liniers, Villa Luro, Mataderos, and part of Soldati, Flores and Villa Lugano. In the rest of the City, private companies operate.
The AGCBA said "persistence of situations observed since the first reports" about Hygiene, dating from 2000. For example, Law 462 which created the EHU is not yet regulated. In fact, the file that handles the project "was pinned between the September 11, 2006 and January 22, 2008". And while the watchdog added that the consequence of not having the regulated Law is the "absence of a regulatory framework to determine the objectives and procedures" of the service provided, it acknowledged that, "of course, this is not attributable to the EHU."
Moreover, the report said the agency did not have a manual approved organization, thus hampering proper rendering of account. This internal regulation is also necessary to minimize the risk in control that derives from a lack of separation in the roles and responsibilities of the staff.
According to the AGCBA, works in the multiyear investment plan of the EHU did not have a plan, written justification or technical documentation required to check the progress of the work. These projects included the second stage of the fire safety installation at the headquarters of the Body, with an official budget of $ 150 thousand. Although on March 14, 2007 the tender process, a month later on April 18 opened, were rejected all offers because "the times of force is defeated and no determination was made on the pre-award of one of the bidders." At the closing of the audit, the work was unfinished and also made it impossible to use to its full potential the first stage of the firefighting equipment, which was already complete and cost $ 122,650.
The report also adds that the property, beyond not having an evacuation plan, "has a high risk of fire (because of) fuel pumps and tanks for clothes, paper and cleaning supplies." However, one of the conclusions of the inspection body also highlights the "major building improvements at the headquarters of Varela 555, (as) the best occupation of facilities, construction of reservoirs and locker rooms."
However, the headquarters of the Body is zoned as "residential district R2bII" and from the activities that take place the audit found that the EHU does not comply with the Urban Planning Code, and that projects for the treatment of lixivians and the environmental impact assessment "have not been concluded."
Regarding the use of resources, the AGCBA verified that "42% of purchases and contracts audited, had approval of expenditures made (by) Decree 1370-1301", which enables costs essential need for outside due process of law.
