Lackluster Audit...Did Suwon City Council Ruin a Year's Worth of Work?

Did the Suwon City Council ruin a year's worth of work for Suwon? Citizen observers who witnessed the first half-term administrative audit of the 8th Suwon City Council held from the 26th to the 29th of last month expressed it this way, comparing the deficient audit to one where it is difficult to determine whether the harvest was good or poor. The audit of administrative affairs failed to properly fulfill its function of examining whether Suwon city properly executed taxes paid by citizens over the year, identifying incomplete or unnecessary projects, seeking alternatives, and improving institutional irrationalities. It is worth examining why such evaluations emerged through audits spanning all standing committees. <Editor's Note>

Data analysis and proper understanding of administrative affairs in relevant departments fell short. Most council members posed inquiries at the level of resolving curiosity with questions like "What is this?" and 'pie-in-the-sky' style questions abounded. A member of the Urban Construction Committee proceeded with questions during the inquiry into changes to the 2020 Urban Master Plan without properly grasping the difference between the basic plan and the management plan.

There were many instances where council members failed to grasp the essence of the audited agency's administrative affairs. A member of the General Affairs and Development Committee scolded the agency over differences in average household population scales and park creation plans for Gwanggyo and Homae developments, despite these not conforming to legal standards or development scales. Additionally, a council member who raised questions regarding the issue of school site contributions merely said, "Please coordinate so there are no problems."

In particular, the General Affairs and Development Committee, which caused even the execution branch to lower its guard during the Development Projects Bureau audit, fell to the level of 'questioning' rather than 'inquiry' on unfamiliar administrative matters. One public official said, "I went without sleep for two weeks preparing for rehearsals and practicing responses to pointed issues, and while I felt relieved that the inquiry content was straightforward, it felt somewhat bitter."

Some council members raised suspicions merely by citing content from specific newspapers or engaged in patchwork-style inquiries that only wasted time. Prime examples include the issue of contract worker recruitment at the Facilities Management Corporation under the Culture and Welfare Committee and the illegal delegation of parking lots by the World Cup Management Foundation. It was evaluated that they merely criticized wrongdoings without properly examining measures to prevent recurrence or scrutinizing budget execution details.

In particular, the Culture and Welfare Committee criticized excessive budget execution for various cultural events including the Suwon Hwaseong Cultural Festival but revealed limitations in failing to propose alternatives such as eliminating patronage-oriented budget allocations or cutting overlapping budgets for similar festivals.

Chronic problems persisted. Without exception, inquiries related to constituency-specific issues flooded in. A member of the Urban Construction Committee overlooked the broader policy aspects of Suwon city administration and spent over 30 minutes asking questions only about trivial constituency issues, drawing disapproving looks from observers.

Criticism also followed regarding the execution branch's inadequate submission of materials. The Construction Division and Water Works Bureau submitted materials requested by council members on the day of the audit or promised to submit them later, resulting in inquiries being reduced to criticizing inadequate materials and missing submissions.

Kim Mi-jeong, Secretary General of Suwon Citizens' Coalition for Better City, said, "The audit clearly revealed whether council members had been diligent in their usual legislative activities," and pointed out, "Some council members should question whether their activities have been commensurate with their legislative allowances."

There was not a single council member who properly grasped the essence and raised questions about the city mayor's pledge projects, including the Suwon Convention City 21 project and the pursuit of Suwon Arts High School. The Suwon Metropolitan Light Rail issue, which appeared to warrant a validity debate, also ended at merely examining the current status. Evaluations of the freshman council leadership also remained divided.

The Culture and Welfare Committee and Urban Construction Committee received positive assessments for smooth audit proceedings and taking strong warnings against evasive responses from the execution branch, while the General Affairs and Development Committee and Economy and Environment Committee drew negative assessments questioning whether the proceedings were a forum or an audit.

Meanwhile, some council members managed to collect and analyze data and prepare alternatives despite the short audit period. Cases such as investigating the city treasury selection process and contractor contract issues, diagnosing problems with turnkey-method bidder selection, identifying shortfalls in residential environment improvement funds, and inquiring about public parking lot acquisition methods deserve high marks. However, the consensus is that it is difficult to give most council members' audit preparations a generous score.

Song Won-chan, Secretary General of the Suwon Participatory Budget Coalition, concluded, "As chronic problems have not been improved, overall it was not significantly different from last year's administrative audit," and added, "I felt an overall lack of backbone regarding the execution branch's audit material submissions and inquiries."