Translated material
“Hit the sparrows from a cannon” - where are the landings?
The Nezavisimaya Gazeta published an article “You can’t tear out what was stolen from the budget with your teeth” ( http://www.ng.ru/editorial/2013-02-21/2_red.html ), which clearly explains that no matter how many inspectors find violations, the efficiency of such checks in Russia tends to ZERO.
“According to estimates by the Chairman of the Accounts Chamber, Sergei Stepashin, 1 trillion rubles are stolen annually during government procurement alone. But how much of this gigantic amount is returned to the budget? The answer: only a few billions, that is, fractions of a percent.” As the auditors report, “In total, based on the results of our control measures, violations of legislation and financial discipline amounted to more than 780 billion rubles.” As the author of the article notes, “this is not money returned to the treasury at all, or even identified thefts, but only abstract volumes of certain violations.” How much was returned to the federal budget? — “2.1 billion rubles out of 4.5 billion rubles have been reimbursed.”
Maybe this problem only exists at the federal level? Well, we can come down to earth and let’s try to analyze the results of the work of the financial control department of the Kostroma region for 2012, which, in addition to finances, also controls the placement of government orders. http://dfk.adm44.ru/maininfo/otchetotdelov/index.aspx
Alas, the picture is similar, although there are some positive aspects - “In total, 49 control events were carried out, during which the order of spending 12.3 billion rubles of budget funds was checked. This is 2 times more compared to the amount of funds checked in 2011.” .
Perhaps this “hairpin” is addressed to the current federal minister, who did not like being controlled so much by the financial control department revived from oblivion, but that is a different story.
Everything is the same, at the regional level it’s even a little worse: in reality you can try to return only the shortfall to the budget, and this is 0.056 percent of all established violations, the rest is “abstract volumes of certain violations.” And just try, it’s not a fact that they will return her too.
From the report on the results of work for 2012:
“Of the total amount of funds inspected, the use of funds in violation of the law was recorded in the amount of 772,000.3 thousand rubles or 6.3%, including:
— inappropriate use of budget funds — 1,263.4 thousand rubles;
— ineffective expenses 32,437.3 thousand rubles;
— shortage of material assets 434.6 thousand rubles;
— other violations 737,865.0 thousand rubles.
The “other violations” category includes violations associated with a decrease in the efficiency of the financial system as a whole.”
What is misuse of budget funds? In simple everyday language, these are funds used for purposes other than those specified in the budget schedule. However, the treasury missed these payments, and it is the treasury that carries out current financial control, so in parallel, this question should be addressed to the treasury, and not just the organization being audited.
As practice shows, there is no need to expect return violations for this block. Ineffective expenses, similarly, cannot be returned, since their nature is subjective. About “other violations, which make up the lion’s share of all violations, it is better than what is said in the report itself, and you cannot say: “... a decrease in the efficiency of the functioning of the financial system,” again, the subjective opinion of the inspectors, on what is it based, what legal norms are violated? They attributed the payment to the wrong account of the budget classification - where is the crime in this? But we know how the regional financial system functions “effectively”, and we can talk about this for a very long time.
The result is that there is practically nothing to return. Therefore, the dynamics of detected violations and the volume of detected violations per employee, compared to last year, as a kind of achievement, only cause a smile. After all, a curious citizen may ask the question: “How much does it cost to maintain one inspector per year, if the result of their work is actually zero?” — Judging by the plans for 2013, then on average more than half a million rubles for each staff member.
I have been dealing with this issue for more than ten years and I can say with confidence that at present there is no indisputable indicator for assessing the effectiveness of control activities. The best of them is the return of funds to the budget, but it also has certain flaws. Optimal would be a developed set of a number of indicators that takes into account the specifics of the control body and has its own weight in the integrated indicator for assessing its activities.
Another equally pressing problem facing the financial control department is the implementation of control over public procurement. No one disputes the need for such control, but think about the numbers: “In 2012, the Department checked the procedure for carrying out 1,046 state and municipal orders worth 1.32 billion rubles, which is twice as much as last year.
Based on the results of these inspections, 18 orders for violation of the law were issued, 10 cases of administrative offenses were initiated, and administrative fines totaling 80 thousand rubles were paid to the budget." http://www.adm44.ru/news/2013/02/1e6ea597- 0ede-4727-aa42-008b935fbd42.aspx
After all, out of more than six hundred violations identified during inspections, fines amounted to only 80 thousand rubles. Again, a legitimate question arises: what is the point of such checks, if procurement activities have already been carried out, nothing can be changed; We're hitting our tails again. Maybe it would be more expedient to carry out control activities when purchases have not yet been made, and when budget funds have not yet been wasted (and this has to be stated not only at the regional, but also at the federal level)? However, these are already gaps in federal legislation, but why not come up with a legislative initiative?
After all, officials can work normally, and the main thing is that there is a real benefit from this, although who knows how things really are: - “a high level of budget savings was obtained when placing orders for the supply of fuel and energy resources for the heating period 2012-2013 for state and municipal customers.
When holding joint tenders for the supply of fuel oil, the starting price was reduced by 24.5%, and when holding joint tenders for the supply of coal, the savings amounted to 19%. What is the use of these savings? If, for example, you increase the starting price, the savings will be even greater After all, it’s not just like that: “Today, the governor of the Kostroma region, Sergei Sitnikov, ordered an analysis of the placement of the state order in 2012 with a view to inflating the initial price of the contract.”
http://www.adm44.ru/news/2013/02/a7c9c915-ea0b-4482-80cc-30bed863d478.aspx
And here are the first results: after just 3 days, budget savings for the state order decreased by 36.2 million rubles. What will happen a month after the inspection? Will it turn out that it will completely dissolve?
I hope that this article did not offend any of my former colleagues, but test work in modern conditions should be structured according to completely different principles. Yes, you carry out subsequent control, but it must be control that brings results. The department should concentrate professionals who are ready to: teach, help, advise, monitor the work of departmental controllers, and only last but not least, punish. Who needs these mythical verified billions and millions of identified violations if there are no landings?