The Court of Auditors of Mendoza decided to fine two citizens for quite unusual reasons: because they didn’t control the use of a cottage owned by the Department of Aging "because they didn’t have a vehicle to go get there” and for making a profit from culinary sales. Also they brought forward charges to other four municipal employees for not accounting the use of $20,000 pesos during the 2005, 2006, and 2008 administrations.

These particular cases arise from two judgments made by the state watchdog. Number 16039, issued in June of this year, is perhaps the most striking. There are 11 homes, located in an area with gardens and open green spaces that the state government placed under the orbit of the Department of the Aging "that was earmarked for cultural, leisure and, recreation". According to the Budget Law, "the office may temporarily rent the facilities and use the proceeds for purchasing new equipment in their offices."

So far everything seems normal. But when the Court of Auditors reported the "lack of controls to ensure that all users pay an entry fee" they received a very particular response. The managers of the older adult department said, "it is difficult to record the activities taking place on state grounds because they don’t have a vehicle to move in", for example, a car, but they did try to fulfill their duty when on September 23rd, 2012 they sent one of the employees out to monitor the place with his own car”. They definitely mean well.  

Moreover, it was found that "the person in charge of the place carried out his own activities.” More specifically, he sold drinks food, and supplies in a kiosk on state property, and for their own benefit. This means that he reneged the duty to allocate all the money coming from the proceeds to the maintenance of the plaza and offices in the Department of Ageing. The body's response to this observation was that "they knew that occasionally they made empanadas to any group of people who entered, according to them they didn’t make any profit; it was just something they did". 

The Court also noted that "there was no Law that established a fixed rate for each activity" and had "no official receipt books, therefore there were not valid receipts." For all these reasons, the state watchdog fined the director of management and the accountant for $2,000 and $4,000 pesos each.

In another decision, the Court of Mendoza said that at last, "after eight years an employee of the municipality of San Rafael deposited the $3,000 pesos that were given to him in 2005." Logically, the Court of Auditors of the State fined him $2,783.43 for the considerable time delay.

Like this case, there are many more that didn’t "even present the documentary evidence." In one case an employee borrowed $12,000 pesos and by the Audit’s closing day the money had not been returned, so the entity decided to fine him $18,200 pesos.