The Auditor General of the City of Buenos Aires (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) found that teachers registered in more than one Classification Board received different assessments score for the same title and position, showing the "lack of a unified approach to the treatment of differences criteria. They are presented in the valuation of certain securities." This is one of the observations from the report that was held at the Ministry of Education in order to analyze the activity of the 14 Boards in 2009.

The Teachers' Statute provides that the Boards are responsible for granting titles to score, making payrolls aspiring to enter teaching, accumulation of charges, substitutions and promotion of hierarchy and internships, all in order of merit. Its members are also assigned the task of sorting and organizing a certain number of bundles. But the Buenos Aires audit found that not only some of the files are not paginated -Making loss Documentation- feasible, but there are no procedures for treatment or adequate physical space for their care.

In addition, the custom classification bundles do not have a "further review of another member of the Board", damaging the transparency of the process of scoring and selection, which in turn generates, according to AGCBA that "before an error analysis of existing documentation on file, that it cannot be remedied. "

Irregularities detected by the AGCBA as "manual sorting, the absence of control by opposition and inconsistencies presented by the Base Securities" make the allocation of positions and points is neither fair nor adequate, thus altering the possibility of teachers to access a square that merit belongs to them.

The Members

The Human Resources Ministry of Education of the City Government reported that in 2009 there were 565 agents who were working on the boards. But according to data gathered at the time of the audit, obtained by finding the attendance record, 328 were the people who really were registered, 42.1% less than reported by management.

The auditors also found that a sample of 35 agents who should serve on the boards, six were working in other organisms, 18 not know what board were four cases and no certificate of service was found. Also, agencies found that "the resolutions approving the involvement of teachers at each of the joints do not specify the place of performance."