Canadians have long grown weary of hearing how the safeguards built into various government levels simply do not seem to function as intended. Taxpayers are reminded time and again by responsible civil servants of flaws in the system, excesses unearthed. Audits are usually what provide the smoking gun.
Outrage results - as was the case with the billion-dollar boondoggle also known as the gun registry. But over time, if steps are not taken to prevent further similar occurrences the indignation just peters out. Many have already forgotten about the Human Resources/Stewart scandal with misplaced billions at stake. Perhaps that is what the Liberals are hoping for with the Gomery Inquiry into Adscam. Who can predict what other dirt the Grits have swept under an already filthy carpet of government?
Audits over here keep showing diversions of funds, if not outright abuse and mismanagement by government branches. Estonian governments have yet to be chided or exposed for gross mismanagement of public funds as consecutive Liberal "givernments" have been, but not for lack of activity by the Estonian State Audit Office, or SAO.
The SAO issued an interesting press release this Wednesday, indicating that government agencies and ministries in Estonia have not been meeting the letter of the law when it comes to following public information laws with regard to polls and analyses paid for by the public purse. While the sums in question are nowhere near Canada's HR or gun registry losses and expenditures, for a small country they are considerable.
The most recent state audit has revealed that in the time period of 2001-2004 63 Estonian State agencies ordered more than a thousand polls and/or analyses. The total cost of these studies was 200 million kroons, or somewhat more than CAD$ 20 million. Not quite in Adscam neighbourhood, but still no chump change. Of these 63 the most industrious was, ironically enough, the Ministry of the Environment and its respective sub-agencies. Environmentalists, who should be thinking of conservation, reduction and recycling ordered 40% of such studies. The Finance and Communication ministry followed them at 16% with the Ministry of Agriculture at 13%. In theory analyses and polls are underwritten to find out what to do, how to do it, or more commonly to suss what the populace thinks of a certain project. (This week's news that the new coalition is thinking of commissioning a poll on the implementation and acceptance of euro is one indication of how poll-happy Estonians are. Another is the regularity with which the people are polled about their happiness or lack thereof as EU members. Without a doubt, polls influence policy, policy in turn determines poll wording.)
As the SAO notes, it is not the expense of these polls and analyses that is troubling. It is that the entire process from generation to completion is not being publicized according to the requirements laid out in Estonia's freedom of information legislation. Almost four fifths of these commissioned results failed to be aired; in Estonia, where E-government is the E-reality, this means failure to post on respective web sites. Failure to post necessary information such as who commissioned the poll, who carried it out, the cost of the study, as well as contact person for further info are some failures noted by the SAO. A similarity with the Canadian Gagliano run Public Works perhaps? Or, once more, Adscam?
Perhaps not, for Estonia repeatedly keeps scoring higher than Canada on the corruption-free international index. Still, memories in Estonia are long; many remember how during the heady years after independence was regained monies were channeled to apparatchiks, certain politicos ended up living high off the hog. Precisely why such audits should be heeded.
The Estonian auditors say it best. A visit to their website www.riigikontroll.ee provides a wealth of information. Consider their mission statements. (Much of what follows here is almost verbatim from their website. Estonian auditors know how to write clearly, and concisely, and are to be commended for making complex issues easy to comprehend!)
As the use of resources in the public sector is, alongside with legislation and internal control, largely based on trust, it is inevitable that public administration should be audited by an appropriate institution. An audit is not an object per se, but represents a necessary part of the management system by helping to avoid or mitigate deviations from regular, economic, efficient and effective government.
The Estonian SAO performs a significant role in reporting on the chain between the Parliament and the Government of the Republic. The Parliament, which allocates to the Government the funds for the implementation of its policies is responsible for the effective use of resources of the public sector. (Remember Sheila Copps and the Great Canadian Flag giveaway?) The Government is accountable for the regular and effective use of the resources of the public sector. Thus the Government must establish and maintain a system ensuring the achievement of objectives and regularity of activities.
Any administrator of public funds can be responsible for its activities only when the body who has set the objectives and defined the tasks has also established clear-cut requirements concerning the reporting on the use of allocations. Thus, reporting must cover both sides – the achievement of the objectives and the funds spent on it.
The SAO's press release this week was quick to point out that full disclosure of expenses tied to polls and their analysis make them more transparent, and thus less likely to incur risk. Whether that risk is worth taking will, in turn, be determined by how the public perceives the fairness and transparency of the system.
A mere survey of money spent, without any information about the achievement of the objectives, deprives the notion of responsibility of its content. A survey of objectives achieved without information on expenditure renders the achievements incomparable. This is the key point that Estonian auditors made this week, and one that Canadian politicians, if they can raise their snouts from the public trough even before John Gomery delivers his conclusions, would do well to apply over here.
Heeding the auditors
Archived Articles | 22 Apr 2005 | EWR
Archived Articles
TRENDING
