Court of Accounts Report: Prejudice of over 500 million lei in local administrations

The Court of Accounts found a prejudice of over 500 million lei in the budget of mayoralties in 2014, the largest amount of 137.9 million lei being recorded in Bucharest and the lowest of 1.2 million lei in Vaslui county. According to the report on the execution account of local budgets in 2014 made by the Court of Accounts, presented in November, the most significant prejudices were caused by not observing legal provisions in engaging, liquidating and paying expenses. “Law infringements discovered led to budget prejudices of 524.4 million lei. The most significant infringements causing prejudices are those about engaging, liquidating and paying expenses, as well as the illegal use of budget funds,” the report shows. Bucharest ranks first for the prejudice chapter with 137.9 million lei, followed by Constanta county with 47.6 million lei and Timis county with 40.7 million lei. The smallest prejudice was produced in Vaslui county -1.2 million lei. Representatives of the Court of Accounts pointed out that prejudices were caused by the wrong interpretation and application of the law in the field of personnel salaries in local public administration. In this context, illegal payment were made by granting a fidelity and loyalty bonus, confidentiality bonus, bonus for affecting conditions, special rights for labour health and safety, and salary supplements. Another cause of prejudices is the existence of bad management of the efficiency of expenses for the maintenance of local public institutions, determined by not observing legal provisions referring to fuel consumption, maintenance materials, car insurances. Court of Accounts inspectors found irregularities in public acquisitions of services and investment works with negative consequences in insuring efficiency of purchases made, by not assuring competition policies in obtaining a price at the level of the one used in the market. Most infringements generating prejudices pointed out, among other things, the payment of services not performed by entrepreneurs, but invoiced and paid, the payment of works containing higher quantities than the ones executed, of materials with prices way above market price, the acceptance of documents that do not include information needed to certify the reality of sums requested, paying services several times over, the purchase of materials given in custody to executors but which were not found among works carried out.