The Court of Auditors criticizes the Geneva Council of State over the allocation of mandates – rts.ch

The Court of Auditors discovered that subsidies were awarded through mandate contracts. A practice which constitutes “a violation of the provisions” of the law on compensation and financial aid (LIAF). Around fifteen cases of this type have been recorded.

However, no trace of corruption has been uncovered, underlined the co-author of the report François Paychère. The magistrate did not exclude that there was sometimes a desire to free themselves from the rules or that some acted out of ignorance of them.

Over-the-counter mandates

Another observation by the investigating magistrates is that “it is not always possible to understand a posteriori the reasons which push the State to use a third party and how the expenditure serves to achieve public policy objectives”.

The Court of Auditors also noted that the State granted mandates over the counter when they should have been subject to public procurement legislation. An office thus awarded three mandates with similar objectives to two companies managed by the same person.

For the Court of Auditors, the three mandates should have been considered as the same contract. The division made it possible to avoid having to go through a procedure open to all suppliers.

Recommendations refused

The Court of Auditors recommends “simple” measures which would make it possible to improve the process and fill the gaps which have been identified, but it complains of not having had the desired attention from the Council of State. Of the ten recommendations, seven were refused without explanation, lamented François Paychère.

The magistrate cannot explain this “disinterest” of the executive. “We are offering basic things, which are nothing revolutionary,” he stressed. The Court of Auditors recommends, for example, that the State clarify the notion of market and its delimitation.

A “biased” report according to the Council of State

During an unprecedented press conference, the Council of State denounced “a biased report”. “This report, marred by gaps, approximations and a dubious approach, raises unacceptable suspicion,” noted Nathalie Fontanet, president of the executive.

She criticizes the Court of Auditors for wanting to “obviously worsen the situation and the perception that the people of Geneva would have of it”. Guest on the Forum show on Monday, Nathalie Fontanet also pointed out conclusions which represent only a tiny proportion of reality according to her. “In this case, it turns out that the report makes generalizations by only talking about 84 purchases out of 36,000. The report does a compliance audit. If one of the different conditions, one of the different steps that should be carried out does not is not, it is the entire mandate which is judged to be non-compliant,” she judges.

The Council of State, however, recognizes that the purchasing system can be improved, but specifies that a project aimed at redefining the cross-functional markets of the departments is underway. This is why four of the recommendations considered redundant are rejected. Another rejected recommendation consisted, according to the Council of State, of putting in place “controllers to control the people responsible for control”. The executive does not want a heavy bureaucracy which goes against the principles of autonomy and agility within the State.

tendentious vocabulary

Beyond the substance, the executive’s opposition also concerns the form of the report which uses tendentious vocabulary with terms such as “corruption” or “fraud” even though the Court has not specifically noted any fraud, nor financial damage.

This was the final report of the current magistrates of the Court of Auditors whose mandate ends at the end of the year.

ats/miro/ther