Four Years Later It Was Learned That the Investment Account of the City Did Not Give Adequate Information
<p style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">Only in April 2009, the Audit of the City of Buenos Aires confirmed that the accounts presented in 2005 of the budget reallocations only provided partial information on debt. In addition, the agency detected an under use of programs and several breaches in procurement and contracting.</span></p> <div> </div>
After four years of waiting, the Auditor General of the City of Buenos Aires (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) issued its opinion on the Account for the 2005 Investment, which states that the accounts presented on the City budget "did not provide adequate information" concerning the balance sheet of the public sector.
The watchdog added that the investment account "only partially informed about the indebtedness of the City."
In addition, during the course of the report, "it was not possible to know all the budget changes" recorded in the year, and several programs did not present their physical goals, i.e. it is unknown whether the items were properly executed in accordance with the objectives planned for that year. This lack of data prevented the AGCBA to achieve firstly, the validity of the current credit, 2005, and on the other, to evaluate the efficiency of the Buenos Aires public production.
However, the audit did find the "underspending of budget items," and added that, at the time of the budget, the City Government "left unmet needs." Therefore, the body stands out as a "gap in management" because reallocated funds were not used, and noted that "the reasons why the budget was not executed should be exposed.”
The Investment Account is the last step of the budget process, beginning with the development, scheduled for September of last year, and implementation during the current financial year. For the AGCBA, the accountability of 2005 "is not complete (because of) financial management and economic aspects" required by the regulations.
As an example, the report argues that the General Accounting documentation regarding the performance of several decentralized entities were requested but were unable to locate those papers. Among independent agencies the City Bank, Buenos Aires Health Care, and the AUSA concessionaire of highways are included.
Also, some of these structures lacked jurisdiction, this means that it could not delineate responsibilities and lacked "adequate internal controls."
The Audit adds that "several shortcomings in government organizations, lack of textbooks, lack of controls in several areas, insecurity in the information provided, and administrative inefficiencies are found."
Beyond the findings of the watchdog, there was a budget that was executed. And in that sense, the auditors found "significant failures in procurement, tendering, and contracting; and non-publication of the resolutions. As a fun fact, the report highlights "the impossibility of controlling the CEAMSE," in fact the refusal of the entity to be inspected, the AGCBA must "seek justice (to) assert its power as comptroller."