Bener spending affair: Financial audits warned the government years ago

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

An organic banana and a sandwich for 1.15 francs: miniscule amounts found in the expense receipts of the cantonal government of Bern due to the ‘cash collapse’ became the hot topic of the year that had just begun. A well-paid government councilor who even charges for lunch at the taxpayer’s expense? The outrage in the comments columns and on social media is high, as is the malice.

At the center of the shitstorm is security director Philippe Müller (FDP), who received 20 cents for the banana. While government council members went into hiding this week, the day after the SRF broadcast, communications chief Reto Wüthrich tried to refute the impression that the magistrates were sowing division: “There is no member of the government who charges small amounts as expenses – and all not systematic at all. ” he announced.

Individual cases were selected

And immediately counterattacked: the “KassenOLL” picked out two individual cases from hundreds of invoices that were five years old. But the damage had already been done long ago: Bern’s expense affair went down in the national scandal chronicle as ‘Banana Gate’.

The relevant declarations from 2018 to 2021 are also available for Blick. There are actually no other extreme cases to be found here. However, this shows that smaller amounts were occasionally charged, although the Bernese government members received a lump sum expense allowance of 8,000 francs in addition to their salary of 280,000 francs.

For example, sandwiches for 4.60 francs, a parking ticket for 20 or a picture book for 15.90 francs were submitted for reimbursement – also a long time ago. Everything was legal, the canton initially responded to the SRF investigation and safety director Müller later apologized for the fact that two pretzels in 2018 and a banana in 2019 were “incorrectly recorded”.

Financial controls had already warned about the spending

Research by Blick now shows that financial control warned the cantonal government of Bern years ago about how dangerous the unclear handling of taxpayer money in connection with expenditure could be for the government’s reputation.

When asked, Thomas Remund, head of financial control, confirmed: “We have tried to raise awareness and have shown that without clear rules of the game there is a high risk of reputational damage.”

The financial audit investigates the legal use of taxpayers’ money in the canton’s twelve billion budget. But it would be nonsense to look at government members every time they take a sandwich. Government leaders generally check and approve their expenditure themselves, but according to government spokesman Wüthrich, the supervisory authority must check whether the laws are being complied with. Financial auditing looks at government spending every few years – most recently in 2019.

Clear guidelines were already needed in 2019

Until now it was not known that this audit by the cantonal government had already resulted in a reprimand from the supervisory body. Neither the banana nor the bun played a role. However, according to Remund, the financial control at the time explicitly required clear guidelines on the amounts that the magistrates could claim in addition to the lump sum expense allowance.

“Until now, almost all expenses that appear to be related to the office could be legally invoiced, even small amounts,” Remund criticizes.

To date, even the audit committee of the cantonal parliament had no knowledge of the 2019 audit report. The government does not want to release it at Blick’s request. Spokesman Wüthrich refers to the law, according to which complaints from financial audits are not public. The government council’s response to criticism of financial control therefore remains secret.

Costs regulated since 2021

Wüthrich points out that the government council has adjusted the expense regulations for 2021. Since then, it has been arranged which costs are included in the lump sum and which can be invoiced separately.

If a member of the government uses a private car for official purposes, this falls under the general scheme. This also applies to clothing and ‘other small expenses’ such as ‘lockers, tips or small donations’. However, members of government may invoice costs for food, accommodation and travel expenses individually.

The criticism of financial control is by no means irrelevant. Chief Controller Remund emphasizes that the requirements have not been met: “There is still no cost framework for individual expenses, as is the case for the other cantonal employees and is also common in the private sector.” However, that will probably change soon. Voices have already been heard from parliament calling for at least the definition of a minimum amount for individual expenditure. In the future, only expenditures of 50 or 100 francs or more could be allowed. It is also possible that political pressure will lead to the abolition of individual spending; in most other cantons, all expenses are a fixed amount.

The minimum amount is still missing

The Bern government also looked at the definition of a spending framework when adapting the 2020 regulation – and rejected it. Without a prescribed minimum amount, magistrates could theoretically still charge the taxpayer for the purchase of a banana today; the keyword ‘food’ is sufficient.

The government justified waiving a cost ceiling by saying that transparency was guaranteed in any case, because the publicity principle applies to the expenses of board members.

Seen in this light, it is an irony of history that the Bern government is now under pressure because SRF has made the expense calculations public. However, according to ‘Kassenrutsch’, the canton had still tried to prevent the demand for publication of the receipts, which was based on the publicity principle. If the government had shown with a revised scheme that it is theoretically no longer possible for the magistrates to claim small amounts as expenses, the current fuss over the “Banana Gate” would probably have been less violent. Head of financial control Remund says: “If there is no binding cost limit, it is to be feared that the canton of Bern will continue to be a source of conversation that makes you laugh or shake your head in the future.”

Source:Blick