How the Court of Auditors changes with the approved reform

The majority approves the reform of the Court of Auditors and the government, in expressing satisfaction, rejects the criticisms of the opposition who during the discussion in the Senate chamber spoke of a reform that limits the supervisory capacity of the Court and constitutes “the executive’s revenge against the judges who declared the procedure for the construction of the Strait Bridge illegitimate”.

Statements that the undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council, Alfredo Mantovanoflatly rejects this by replying to journalists shortly after the green light from the Chamber: “There is no revenge”, he assures, recalling the process of the reform in Parliament which lasted about two years and the numerous hearings held in the Senate, where the text had arrived in March: “Link it to the provision of the accounting judiciary on Bridge over the Straitwhich intervened just over a month ago, seems to me, to put it mildly, a stretch”, the government representative cuts short.

Interlocution and changes: dialogue with the Court of Auditors

In Parliament, he further states, “there has been a constant discussion with the representatives of the Court of Auditors which made it possible to modify more than one of the rules of the original approach”. Among those most pointed out by the Democratic Party, the M5s and the Avs, there are those which “dramatically reduce – as the leader of the dem group, Francesco Boccia, argued – the liability for gross negligenceintroduce real ones preventive safe conducts and even limit compensation for damages.”

The new discipline of liability: fraud and negligence

“Whoever commits acts with fraud which have accounting significance – underlines Mantovano – is 100% responsive, there is no coverage of fraud or similar crimes” while “for those who cause damage through negligence, there is a provision for a sentence of up to two years of their remuneration as a public employee. I believe that staying for two years without a salary is not a light thing”, he continues. “You have to decide whether to be hypocritical or not”, he adds. “We have been accustomed to stratospheric accounting audits whose only limitation was that they were never completed except in small parts. This is a road of reasonableness and allows with one not a light sanction to certainly bring about a punitive response within the confines of reality.”

Delegation to the government and reorganization of the forces

If for the 5 Star Movement “theimpunity is the common thread that binds the majority’s provisions”, the government leaves the door open to dialogue with the magistrates. The law approved today provides for a delegation to the government “to reorganize and rationalize the forces in the field” and the reorganization – reiterates Mantovano – will be “reasonable. There is maximum availability for discussion, as there has been up to now, even if perhaps someone has forgotten it. There will be time and a way to arrive at a certainly more effective overall structure“.

The magistrates: “It’s a step backwards”

“Today a dark page is being written for all citizens: the Senate of the Republic has approved the reform of the Court of Auditors, a judiciary called by the Constitution to guarantee that public resources are allocated to community services and are not wasted due to incompetence or corruption. This is a choice that marks a step backwards in the protection of public budgets and inaugurates a phase in which the principle of responsibility in the management of citizens’ money is significantly weakened”. Thus, in a note, the Association of Magistrates of the Court of Auditors.

“From today, in the presence of serious misconduct, the damage caused to public financesand will be compensable only within the maximum limit of 30% of the damage ascertained. The remaining part will not be recovered and will remain the responsibility of the community. Further strong concerns are raised by the introduction of mechanisms for automatic exemption from liability, linked to the silence of the Court of Auditors in the context of checks on legitimacy or opinions.

In this way, the absence of an explicit ruling from the accounting judiciary risks turning into an automatic justification, bending these functions to logics of exclusion of responsibility rather than improvement of services – we read -. The reform negatively affects the principles of legality, responsibility and good administration, enshrined in the Constitution, and raises a central issue of fairness: public resources belong to everyone and their protection requires effective and credible forms of responsibility. Greater efficiency of the administration is not achieved by reducing the role of the accounting judiciary, but by enhancing the independent and impartial oversight to guarantee the correct use of public money”.