The Federal Supreme Court (STF) completed four years without having its accounts judged by the Federal Audit Court – from 2020 to 2023. Flaws and irregularities were highlighted in the inspection carried out in 2019, but the accounts were approved. In assessing compliance with the Access to Information Law (LAI), the TCU pointed out “risks arising from the disclosure of inaccurate information, in form and content; risks to the efficient service of users, due to the use of an obsolete system to monitor demand; and risks to the integrity of information.
In the last four years, non-compliance with the LAI has only increased. Alleging security issues, data on ministers’ travel was disappearing from the Supreme Court’s Transparency Portal. Until 2020, there was relative transparency, despite the locked spreadsheets, which made access to information difficult. In 2024, the costs of ministers’ tickets and daily allowances will disappear from the Portal once and for all, which is completely contrary to the LAI. The Executive and Legislative powers detail the travels of President Lula, ministers, deputies and senators, as determined by law. STF ministers also travel on FAB jets on secret flights.
Transparency is “the duty of public bodies”
In its Art. 8th, the LAI says that it is the duty of public bodies and entities to promote, regardless of requirements, in an easily accessible location, the dissemination of information of collective interest produced or held by them. This disclosure must include: records of transfers or transfers of financial resources; expense records; information relating to tenders, with the respective notices and results; as well as all contracts signed; and general data for monitoring programs, actions, projects and works of bodies and entities.
Public bodies and entities must use all the means and instruments at their disposal, with disclosure on official websites on the world wide web (internet) being mandatory. Websites must meet, among others, the following requirements: contain a content search tool that allows access to information in an objective, transparent, clear manner and in easy-to-understand language; enable the recording of reports in various electronic formats, such as spreadsheets and text, in order to facilitate the analysis of information.
Restricted information, delayed
But STF data is not “easy to access”. Navigation is not intuitive. On its “Transparency and Accountability” portal, to access data on tickets and daily allowances, citizens must look for the “management” bar. Then, “People Management”. Then click on “data on aid and compensation”. Ticket data is available from 2016 to 2023. Yes, there is no data for 2024 – a delay of 10 months. There is also a list of national daily rates from 2021 to 2024 and international daily rates from 2022 to 2024.
The international daily allowance spreadsheet contains information on name, position, month, activity (event), quantity and total dollar value. But it is not possible to download directly to an Excel spreadsheet. You need to transform the data to Excel. One more restriction: there is only data from the president of the STF, Roberto Barroso, and security guards and advisors. No trips by other ministers are published.
In the 2023 ticket spreadsheet, in PDF, there is the name of the employees who traveled and the office where they are assigned. At the end of the spreadsheet, there is a list of seven ministers with the total amount spent by minister on tickets, on “institutional representation” trips. The court does not inform the destination or the schedule or events of the ministers. The person who spent the most on tickets was Luiz Fux, with R$95 thousand; followed by Barroso, with R$52 thousand. In terms of compliance with the Access Law, compared to the Executive and Legislative branches, the Supreme Court would have, at most, a score of 3.
TCU points out flaws, but does not punish
In judging the STF’s accounts for 2019, the TCU carried out an assessment of the STF’s communication channel with society, in relation to ombudsman and LAI support services. Risks to the image of the STF in society were identified, as it does not have an ombudsman unit that adheres to the standards and good practices of public ombudsman offices; risks to the image of the STF among its users, resulting from the dissemination of inaccurate information, in form and content; risks to the efficient service of users, due to the use of an obsolete system that does not have functionalities to monitor demand; and risks to the integrity of information, due to publishing reports outside the standards used by ombudsman offices.
Once the examinations were completed, the following findings were identified: inadequacy of the Citizen Center to government ombudsman standards; inadequacy of regulations governing the powers of the Citizen Center; absence of a channel to respond to manifestations and requests from authorities, employees and collaborators of the STF; and lack of classification of STF information regarding the degree of secrecy, as well as the respective declassifications.
In view of these findings, the TCU proposed the following measures: the creation of the ombudsman function, updating the competencies of the Citizen Center, the implementation of an internal ombudsman, the improvement of the STF portal, the development of new models for its management reports and forwarding a quarterly report to the Presidency of the STF. “In this way, since the proposed measures will continue to be monitored by Internal Audit, there is no need for intervention by the TCU”, concluded the TCU, in its style: it points out the flaws, but does not punish.
Those who are not judged are accountable online
The blog asked the TCU why the body does not include the STF in the list of bodies that report to the court, since the court itself pointed out several irregularities in the Supreme Court in its last accounting judgment. The TCU responded that, since 2010, it has constituted a process and only takes part of the accounts that are presented to judgment. “The bodies that will have their accounts judged each year are defined according to criteria established by the TCU. This definition takes into account criteria such as management risks, materiality, relevance and notes from previous audits”. He added that bodies and entities that do not have an accounting process established and judged in a given year “must, obligatorily, present a management report to the Court and publish it on their respective website, for public access to accounts”. In other words, the TCU plenary judgment is replaced by the internet. TCU stated that the STF “is accountable every year, like the other bodies under the jurisdiction of the TCU. In 2022 and 2023, the STF was included in the list of units that should present and publish financial statements on the internet, but did not need to have accounting processes taken to trial”.
The TCU also recalled that “the fact of not having a judged accounting process does not prevent the TCU from monitoring through audits, representations and complaints processes”. In relation to the STF’s financial statements, relating to the 2019 financial year, a process was created, reported by Minister Raimundo Carreiro. “The process was assessed by ruling 9764/2021-Second Chamber, which judged the accounts of those responsible to be regular. Therefore, no irregularities were found in the STF’s reporting this year, according to the TCU’s analysis”, concluded the court.
The blog sent the STF, on Monday (11), the list of irregularities highlighted by the TCU in the judgment of the 2019 accounts relating to ombudsman and LAI support services and asked what measures the Supreme Court took regarding these irregularities. The court fell silent.
