A most unfortunate public exchange took place recently between the Auditor General and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The issue at hand was the Auditor General’s dissatisfaction with the pace of the PAC’s work. He went public but it is not clear whether he had raised the issue first with the PAC. Even if he had done so, and was not satisfied, it was inappropriate for him to publicly castigate the PAC and in particular the Chairman. This is especially so since he had quite rightly stated that the delay had nothing to do with him. By going public first, the Auditor General has crossed the boundary of his responsibility and into the realm of politics, given how divided the PAC is at the moment.
Relationship with the Legislature
What was more unfortunate was the statement the Auditor General reportedly made: “I refuse to accept that from Greenidge. You cannot tell me how to do my work.” Whatever statements were attributable to the PAC Chairman, the issue should have been dealt with in a more civilized manner. After all, it is the PAC that approves of the Audit Office’s annual work plan and budget; ratifies senior appointments; and exercises general supervision over the functioning of the Audit Office, including the functions of the Auditor General relating to the staff of the Audit Office. The Auditor General is also required to submit to the PAC quarterly and annual performance reports. Simply put, the Auditor General ought not to have made such a crude statement to the head of a committee to whom he has an administrative reporting relationship. He serves the Legislature and by extension the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly.
Need for the display of humility
The statement that “You cannot tell me to do my work” smacks of arrogance considering that the position of Auditor General requires the skills, competence and training commensurate with those of an experienced professionally qualified accountant with a proven track record. It is public knowledge that the Auditor General does not measure up to those requirements. As such, he should display humility if there are criticisms of his work regardless of how unjustified he may consider them to be, and learn from them. The most casual reading of his 2012 report would suggest a lack of due care in its preparation. Many of the findings were not properly developed in terms of criteria (what should be), condition (what has happened), cause and effect to support the related recommendations. The overall opinion on the
