Na de kabinetsherschikking waarbij niet aan de CGU geraakt werd, gaf Valdir Simão, hoofd van de CGU, voor de weekendkrant van O Globo een interview.
In het eerste deel daarvan gaat het over de hypotheses die over de toekomst van de CGU ontwikkeld waren, inclusief de afschaffing ervan. Uiteindelijk is alles bij het oude gebleven.
In het tweede deel bespreekt hij de schikkingen die voorbereid worden (zie volgende post).
"CGU will close leniency agreement with Dutch company
In an interview, head of controlling defends importance of body
by Francisco Leali
03/10/2015 14:00 / Updated 03/10/2015 14:25
BRASILIA - With his status as minister maintained by the government, the head of the Comptroller General (CGU), Valdir Simão, said the agency is about to close the first leniency agreement with a company engaged in fraud in Petrobras. The Dutch company SBM, accused of paying bribes to the state servers, negotiated with the CGU the terms of the agreement. In the interview on Friday, Simão admitted that it would be very bad for the government to weaken the supervisory board. He ensures that President Dilma always signaled she agreed to keep the powers of the CGU, but there was a proposal to reduce the organisation (‘machine’) under discussion.
[i]There was on the table of President Dilma a proposal that the CGU would lose its ministerial status. This did not happen. And what if this had occurred?
It would be too bad, but from the first moment the president said that she understood that should keep the CGU strengthened with ministerial status, because we inspect other ministries. It is very important, especially when we go through the fight against corruption, that the central organ of government control is strengthened.
The president cited the CGU on the campaign trail as an example of fighting corruption and nevertheless it came in the government to a proposal to take away power of it. Is this not contradictory?
The plan (to reduce ministries) analyzed all the downsizing possibilities of this organization that we think is vital. Of course, one of the hypotheses was to dispose of the Comptroller General of the Union, but this was done from a viewpoint of rationality. But the president said that she thought it important to maintain our status because of the symbol that the CGU is today for the fight against corruption, and for the control of bodies, not only federal, but also states and municipalities.
Now that the CGU has held its power, has anything changed?
Since I took office we have worked on integrating the sectors. I felt there was a certain disintegration in the activities of control and transparency, preventing and combating corruption, internal affairs and the ombudsman. With this opportunity, the CGU may become stronger. But we have to reflect: is our work is properly in tune with the time required to do a preventative control that will prevent losses, fraud, embezzlement. The control exercised by CGU should always be focused on organizations in order to protect them, and not be focused only on people.
We have much experience in inspecting, but when we do it just by looking in the rear mirror, we lose the opportunity to ensure that a particular feature arrives on time to the citizens. The control has to be preventative and we are building a strategic planning so that our performance is attuned to the moment of policy formulation.
Did the threat to CGU help unite the body?
Surely that unified the house. This discussion of the CGU caused the servers to reflect on the importance of the institution and of our role and each one of them.[/i]"