Don't get mad; do better, tailenders!
Posted on September 7, 2006 - Filed Under Review |
THE big furor sparked by that Commission on Audit report about excellently-earning and poorly-earning cities and provinces only upholds the truism that evaluation and comparison are the hotbeds of intrigue.
In truth, COA, as a constitutional commission, holds empirical data and could always hold these up to close scrutiny without wincing at all, when confronted. The wincing, if any, belongs to the audited agency or government unit that, likely as not, fails to pass the grade. – or if it ever passes, does so minus flying colors.
Where money, and the spending of it, is concerned, everyone wants to dip his hand into it; where accounting for monies, and under public disclosure too, is concerned, everyone suddenly feels squeamish and defensive.
To be sure, COA did not interpret the figures but simply collated and produced the report as its mandate provides. The report’s finding print was totally the handiwork of Media, print and broadcast and television, which, again, we hasten to add, is well within the latter’s duty too – to provide a vehicle for transparency in government action especially government expenditures.
If the result of the publication of the COA report is unsavory to some – and surely, savory to others — everything is par for the course.. After all, whether an audited agency figures well, or figures badly, in the charts – for as long as it is not actually in the red or bankrupt — the presumption of good faith in the expenditures is always there.
Fret not, Dagupan, and all ye LGUs similarly “offended” or “compromised.” There is always a next time to do better and fare more strongly.
Comments
Leave a Reply