2011-12

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Significant impact – improvement in audit outcome Significant impact – sustained clean audit Some impact – improvement in key controls Minimal impact – improvement expected only in next financial year No im pact As can be seen in the table above, the number of interactions with the mayors has increased from prior years and included quarterly key control visits as well as additional interactions requested by the municipality and/or training initiatives, together with the provincial treasury and the Department of Local Government. The aim of these interactions is to highlight areas requiring the intervention of executive authorities in trying to sustain clean audit outcomes and improve the audit outcomes of municipalities and entities with unqualified audit outcomes. During the AGSA’s interactions with mayors in the past on their roles and responsibilities, any remaining uncertainty was removed as to the role that mayors have to fulfil to ensure that the municipalities move towards clean audit outcomes. The very slight improvement but largely stagnation in the audit outcomes is a direct result of the improving tone being set from the top and commitments made by municipal leadership comprising mayors, councillors and municipal managers. This is reflected in the fact that many mayors made themselves available to meet with the AGSA quarterly to discuss the status of controls. Very few municipalities, however, have taken ownership of the control assessments. Although the trend has been positive since last year, mayors have to date still failed to exercise the level of oversight that was committed to in response to the prior year’s audit outcome as a number of executive mayors have still not taken full ownership of the key control document and satisfied themselves that identified areas of internal control weaknesses receive the required level of attention. 113
4.4 Initiatives and commitments of key role players to improve audit outcomes The table that follows outlines the key initiatives of the provincial leadership and oversight to improve audit outcomes as well as further commitments made to the AGSA for actions to be taken. The commitments include those made in response to the prior year’s audit outcomes and new commitments obtained through in-year interactions and engagements with them between January 2013 and the date of this report. An assessment of the impact of the initiatives and commitments is also provided. Table 35: Commitments and initiatives of key role players in response to audit outcomes Key role players Outline of initiatives and commitments made Focus area targeted by initiative / commitment Progress made with implementing commitments Impact of initiatives and commitments on audit outcomes Prior year commitments/initiatives Office of the Premier • The provincial leadership will: o drive the strengthening of the relationship between the ministries of provincial treasury and local government and municipalities o review the effectiveness of the municipal-specific support and oversight initiatives provided to the councillors and officials to enable them to address financial and performance management at municipalities o review the status of the quality, implementation and monitoring of the municipalities’ action plans. • The premier can monitor the relationship through feedback at the premier’s coordinating forum. The premier will ensure that operation clean audit, coordinated by the ministries of provincial treasury and local government, will become a standing agenda item of the premier’s coordinating forum for monitoring and evaluation of municipalities’ key controls and commitments, as well as sharing of best practice in order to achieve sustainable clean audit outcomes. The premier will request internal audit units to present their findings at the premier’s coordinating forum and use these sessions to follow up on the actions taken to address the findings. The premier will explore and implement the concept for a “twinning” system that will pair well-performing municipalities with those requiring improvement in order to 114 SCM, PDOs, FM, TP, IT, HR, CONS & GS SCM, PDO, FM, TP, IT, HR, CONS & GS SCM, PDO, FM, TP, IT, HR, CONS & GS SCM, PDOs, FM, TP, IT, Complete Complete Complete Not implemented Some impact Some impact Some impact No impact
Page 1 and 2:
2011-12 General report on the audit
Page 3 and 4:
General report on the audit outcome
Page 5 and 6:
KEY ROLE PLAYERS NOT PROVIDING ASSU
Page 7 and 8:
In working towards sustainable clea
Page 9 and 10:
Aspect Indicator Key outcomes and t
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Table 2: Summary of audit outcomes
Page 17 and 18:
It is clear from the audit outcomes
Page 19 and 20:
Indicator Key outcomes and trends c
Page 21 and 22:
Indicator Key outcomes and trends L
Page 23 and 24:
Indicator Key outcomes and trends A
Page 25 and 26:
In 2011-12, one district municipali
Page 27 and 28:
2.1.4 Status and outcomes of audits
Page 29 and 30:
Swellendam experienced a breakdown
Page 31 and 32:
The purpose of the annual audit of
Page 33 and 34:
The three most common qualification
Page 35 and 36:
The Public Audit Act, 2004 (Act No.
Page 37 and 38:
Findings on reliability relate to w
Page 39 and 40:
The PAA requires the AGSA to audit
Page 41 and 42:
Table 10: Summarised findings in ot
Page 43 and 44:
The AGSA audits included an assessm
Page 45 and 46:
Table 12: Prohibited awards to empl
Page 47 and 48:
Table 13: Awards to close family me
Page 49 and 50:
Suppliers were required to submit a
Page 51 and 52:
eap the required benefits. More emp
Page 53 and 54:
The MFMA requires accounting office
Page 55 and 56:
The previous figure reflects the th
Page 57 and 58:
The previous figure reflects the th
Page 59 and 60:
Figure 11: Nature of and overall tr
Page 61 and 62:
Indicator Auditors identify a large
Page 63 and 64: Root cause number 1: Slow response
Page 65 and 66: Root cause number 3: Key positions
Page 67 and 68: 3.2 Significant deficiencies in aud
Page 69 and 70: Good Concerned Poor The status of t
Page 71 and 72: Driver no. 1: Leadership Movement A
Page 73 and 74: the requirement of the MFMA. Driver
Page 75 and 76: 3.3 Human resource management Effec
Page 77 and 78: Indicator Vacant CFO positions Vaca
Page 79 and 80: Indicator minimum competencies CFO
Page 81 and 82: Unqualified with no findings (5) Un
Page 83 and 84: A lack of discipline, an absence of
Page 85 and 86: Indicator Key findings Allegations
Page 87 and 88: 3.4.2 Summary of the overall audit
Page 89 and 90: 3.4.3.1 Metropolitan municipalities
Page 91 and 92: Figure 15: Security management audi
Page 93 and 94: Minimal improvement Controls not de
Page 95 and 96: 3.4.6 Information technology servic
Page 97 and 98: 3.4.7 Quick wins and recommendation
Page 99 and 100: 3.5 Audit committees and internal a
Page 101 and 102: Governance structure aspect Audit c
Page 103 and 104: Figure 21: Level of assurance provi
Page 105 and 106: Table 32: Comments on the level of
Page 107 and 108: Provincial role players do have a n
Page 109 and 110: Auditee Coordinating/ monitoring in
Page 111 and 112: • The role players within the mun
Page 113: 4.3 Interactions with mayors In res
Page 117 and 118: Key role players Outline of initiat
Page 119 and 120: Key role players Outline of initiat
Page 121 and 122: ecome standard practice to brief th
Page 123 and 124: Management is responsible for the s
Page 125 and 126: 69% (18) 100% (1) 60% (3) 70% (14)
Page 127 and 128: 35% write-off of debts. Only three
Page 129 and 130: The following figure elaborates on
Page 131 and 132: 5.2.4 Financial performance and pos
Page 133 and 134: 2011-12 audit outcome 2010-11 audit
Page 135: ANNEXURE 3: Auditee’ audit opinio
show all

2011-12

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?