Buenos Aires Directorate of Festivals: Many Events, Little "Clarity and Transparency"
<p style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">According to the Audit of the City, on a budget of $ 6 million for events like BAFICI and World Tangos, more than half was spent by special petty cash, strictly speaking, "predictable" expenditures. How many people attend each show is not known, making it impossible to assess compliance with the goals of physical dependence.</span></p> <div> </div>
The Auditor General of the City of Buenos Aires (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) demanded that the Office of Festivals and Central Events (DGFEC) to take actions that reflect and document a management system with a "greater degree of clarity and transparency." The clarion call was made after an audit in 2010 that examined the organization Independent Film Festival, the International Festival of Buenos Aires, and the Tango World Championship and Festival.
The DGFEC is an area under the Ministry of Culture and is responsible for organizing, coordinating and conducting the Independent Film Festival (BAFICI), the International Festival of Buenos Aires (FIBA), the Emerging City Festival, the Jazz the International Festival of Buenos Aires, and the Tango World Championship and Festival, among others.
During the period analyzed, the AGCBA noted that management invested for the three audited festivals more than $6 million, of which a little more than $ 3 million was used in costs incurred by special petty cash and the remaining money was intended for consumption made through funds from the account. According to the audit, "the expenditure of these funds is delivered to the Directorate without any alternative procedures or sufficient legal control".
In relation to both funds, the auditors identified allegations expenses of a festival in another. For this situation the watchdog said it was "difficult to estimate the total cost of each activity in terms of its impact on the budget."
Specifically, in relation to the use of petty cash funds, the AGCBA highlighted the "lack of planning purchases by the audited body and the expenditure incurred by them were predictable and periodic."
The evaluation parameter of the physical goals of each activity is the audience. In this sense, the watchdog detected a bad record of competing as was expressed in "the number of cultural events with public assistance" without any division winner. Thus, the auditors were unable to analyze each activity and even less compares the goals expressed in the budget. This not only shows a lack of precision in the expression of budgetary management but also prevents them to set management objectives for each festival.
Finally, the City Audit detected a lack of clear records of each individual festival, the audited body said they need funds without so much restraint and with a greater degree of freedom in the management of resources, this "requires action to reflect and document them with a greater degree of clarity and experience”.
Finally, the multiple irregularities detected by the AGCBA regarding purchases shows that price comparison charts are missing (and those who were there did not have the signature of the intervener commission), budgets without signatures, lack of publicity of the acts, among others.