Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1048621,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1048621/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 277,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "the university and other places, but this was fairly challenging. We were, however, equal to the challenge. The reports revealed that most county executives did not adhere to their approved budgets. In most instances, funds were reallocated to items that were not budgeted for, and without prior approval by the Controller of Budget and county assemblies. In addition, there were numerous cases of under collection of local revenue, where most counties missed their revenue targets by significant margins as a result not factoring in revenue collection challenges that usually affect their revenue potential targets, especially during similar periods. The under collection of revenue not only resulted in most counties incurring billions of shillings in unpaid bills, but also not implementing certain programmes, as a result of prioritization due to lesser resources than budgeted for. In the financial years under consideration, the Auditor-General reported that pending bills were still a big challenge for many county governments. Most of these bills emanated from under-collection of revenue, which affected the budgeting and implementation of projects. Further, the own source revenue collected was banked in commercial bank accounts, other than the designated revenue collection accounts like the County Revenue Fund (CRF), an avenue for revenue loss. All county governments had weak accounting systems evidenced by failure to present documents for audit, poor record keeping, fraudulent practices, non-compliance to laws and procedures, and poor management of imprest. The reports of the Auditor- General also indicated that counties were still struggling with maintaining proper records, a clear indication that the procurement and accounting departments had personnel challenges. The Committee has made various recommendations pertaining to poor record keeping in each county, depending on how the management had handled the matter. However, the Committee has recommended that the management of each county should ensure that the registry, procurement and accounting departments are staffed with qualified personnel, who are members of the respective professional bodies. The County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Finance and the Chief Officer (C.O.) of Finance should ensure adherence to Paragraph 90 of the Public Finance Management County Government Regulations. During the year under review, the Committee noted that all the counties had not updated registers for the assets and liabilities inherited from defunct local authorities and those subsequently acquired post devolution exposing the county governments to serious risks of loss of assets. This is one of the most pending issues that this House, in one way or the other, must make a decision. This is because when we interrogated the executives of the county governments, one of the excuses that they were giving is that the matter had not been finally dealt with by the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee (IGRTC) which is the apex body where both governors and executive meet to deliberate on this matter. We hope that the assets and liability area of pending bills will be tackled sooner than later. This is because it is one of the avenue where there is loss of assets of the county governments. We need to put the record straight. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}