According to a report by the National Audit Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish), during 2005 the Faculty of Economics of the University of Buenos Aires registered "serious irregularities in the management of funds and control deficiencies."

The study, approved last year, states that "monthly and discretionary sums of money were granted in favor of the staff of the Faculty in the form of social assistance." The auditors add that these deliveries were arranged by the dean of Economics, who "exceeded his powers", that the amounts in question ranged between $ 80 and $ 960 per employee per month, and that the total expense for the year was $ 855,399.

In addition, the University allocated $165,656 "to different beneficiaries for financial aid" to solve issues that, on the one hand, were not charged to the concept of the corresponding expenditure according to the budgetary classifier of Economics and, on the other, were retroactive or correspond to previous years. The AGN argues that many of these expenditures "were foreseeable and should have been included in the budget" of the University. At this point, disbursements are also recorded for "unearned assets not settled in time and in form, corresponding to unaudited 2004 increases in the system."

Likewise, there were resources that were assigned "without cause related to the objectives of the Faculty" to civil associations, foundations and to APUBA, the guild of University staff. As an example, the report revealed that, through a resolution of the Dean, a direct purchase was made of "Christmas purchases at the request of APUBA for $8,322.38, and it is not appropriate that the merchandise (from the dependency) linked with the own action of a guild entity." And, in addition to the current regulations, there were also incorporation of personnel, acknowledgments of services rendered and extensions of contracts on a monthly basis, at the request of different departments of Economics, for reasons of "uncontrollable necessity."

In terms of purchases and contracting, the Watchdog detected that the Faculty made expenditures "for similar concepts through different modalities." The report exemplifies that there were expenditures for $287,165.40 covering spare parts, security services and transfers of people, among other items.

The AGN noted a "significant number of small box assignments that were not officially reported and are extraordinary and / or special, not covered by the applicable regulations." In this sense, the technicians discovered that "approximately 22 special girls' boxes were assigned for different purposes: organization of events, works in different units of the Faculty and purchase of computer materials, (and thus) expenses were taken care of expenses that Can be foreseen in due time and process under the contracting regime "in force.

During the period under review, Economics anticipated "funds not linked to subsidies for research, whose methodology of allocation does not arise from regulations that regulate the minimum requirements for granting, periodicity and surrender," says the AGN, and adds that "this methodology affected the Control of operations ".

The supervisory body analyzed files from the Faculty and noted "various irregularities" in the supporting documentation: in surrenders for June 2005, for example, there are records of previous periods, "even 2004"; Or disbursements that do not coincide with the intended purpose, such as gasoline, tire purchase, car expenses, pharmacies, cafeteria, per diem, kiosk and tickets for bars and restaurants "including tip payment." And, in addition, there were payments of fees "that were not formalized through contracts of location of services or work," the report said.

Rent

Economics rented a building for its Postgraduates. The AGN concluded that the location "was not approved by a bidding process" and that the area of contracting did not intervene "at any stage" of the operation.

The contract in question was signed for three years with a total value of $ 972 thousand, about $ 27 thousand per month. However, according to an opinion of the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the UBA, that amount "is higher than the one fixed by the Court of National Assessment," affirm the auditors, and extend that "the difference could not be quantified because there were no Had access to the appraisal ".

The Audit adds that another characteristic of the lease contract was that it was renewed successively from the first period completed when, even in the original agreement; it said that "these were maturities of non-extendable terms."