Dear Editor,

It should be noted that one of the key objectives of the Auditor General’s Department (AuGD) is to “improve public financial management and governance”.

Having perused a number of the AuGD’s audit reports, I have identified a number of shortcomings that need to be discussed and addressed. It should be noted that this feedback was provided to the AGD over two years ago.

The questions are as follows:

1) How can the AuGD effectively follow up their own recommendations when:

a) implementation of the recommendation is not allocated to a specific individual

b) no specific time frame is given for the implementation of a recommendation

2) Why are recommendations which are raised in reports not prioritised? Unfortunately, with limited resources an organisation may not be able to address all the recommendations at the same time; therefore, it is imperative that they are made aware of the most critical ones so they can prioritise.

3) Are recommendations developed in conjunction with the relevant auditee? Does the auditee agree with the recommendation(s) and accept ownership for the implementation of the said recommendation(s)?

4) How many days, what percentage of time (on average), is spent writing audit reports? It is evident that a considerable amount of the AuGD’s resources are spent developing graphic-laden audit reports, which ultimately add very little value to the audit.

5) Is there a specific reason a brief three-to-four-page summary report is not produced for each audit? It is highly unlikely that any government minister, Member of Parliament, or senior member of management will read an entire 114-page report.

The AuGD has a critical role to play in the ongoing development of Jamaica; however, the overall value and effectiveness of an audit will be lost if the final product — the audit report — is not of the highest standard to assist auditees to “improve public financial management and governance”.

H Edwards

yabbyyoo@gmail.com