Historic relationship RRV/PA

The merger of RRV and PA had been preceded by decades of political discussions. Isberg (2003) and Sterzel (2003) describe the path to the decision as lengthy.¹⁸ It began back in the 1980s in Parliament, but the right-wing parties arguing for such a reform had no success at that time (Isberg, 2003:248). Therefore, personnel in both authorities were well prepared when merger preparations started, and all agreed that the reform was necessary. Many were relieved that it was finally taking place.

Many auditors described how a sense of competition – especially for media attention - had characterized the relationship between RRV and PA, in the field of performance audit. Their relationship over the last years had been strained, and this was partly explained by the equally tense relationship between the two Directors-General.

18See Isberg (2003) for a thorough description of events along the way towards the merger decision. Sterzel (2003) describes the constitutional aspects of the matter.

Until around 1999, these Directors-General, called Christopher and Rachel here, had met once or twice each year (interview with Christopher). Merger discussions had then been intensified, and following these discussions there had been a meeting between the PA Board of Directors and the RRV Director-General. This meeting resulted in controversies, as the RRV Director-General claimed that the PA was not independent enough towards members of Parliament, meaning mainly those on the PA Board of Directors. In an interview in December 2002, the Director-General at RRV, argued that RRV was more of an independent audit authority than PA, and explained:

PA all this time wanted to compete saying that they were the independent audit authority. They have been out travelling in the world, meeting our sisters and brothers, instead of going to the audit committees in Parliaments, i. e. to see their political brothers.

A number of articles were published on this matter after 1999. After the meeting mentioned above, contact between RRV and PA continued with middle managers instead. Co-operation was limited to mainly checking that RRV and PA did not audit the same authorities.

While RRV had an extensive budget and approximately 275 employees, PA was much smaller, with only 25 auditors. Parliament emphasized, in documents preceding the merger decision, that this was not a difference based on any political priorities. PA only conducted performance audits, while RRV encompassed performance audits, financial audits, international projects, and so-called Special Audits (Swedish: Bolag och särskilda granskningar).

RRV was placed under the Government. They took assignments from the Government, but they also suggested and conducted their own audits, focused on problems in the public administration that RRV had identified themselves. PA was placed under Parliament. Just like RRV, they suggested audits themselves sometimes, but suggestions could also come from Parliament. It was Parliament who approved their audit plan. Both authorities wanted to claim that they in practice worked in a rather independent way (for a discussion on their relative independence, see Ahlbäck, 1999).

The first round of merger preparations process was characterized by a lack of personnel influence, and extensive cut-downs were suggested.

The relationship between RRV and PA improved radically when the two authorities agreed in their criticism of these suggestions. The project was shelved in the spring of 2002, and after this, RRV and PA again started to co-operate on management level, according to Christopher (the PA Director-General).

According to Rachel (the RRV Director-General) the relationship between RRV and PA had always been good, although they had had different opinions on some issues.

Some employees at PA and RRV had personal friends at the other authority, and many had worked with someone from the other organization. On this individual level, the relationship between PA and RRV was good.

When personnel were asked to describe the historic relationship between RRV and PA, almost every interviewee brought up the subject of independence. It turned out to be central for how these authorities perceived – and, especially, valued – each other. Ron, an RRV auditor, explained (Dec 2002):

A long time back, we regarded PA as a non-independent, very small authority, that was in the lap of members of Parliament, i.e. members of Parliament were in charge and we thought it was wrong that they should audit their own decisions. I think that there was a certain…

both pride and conceit over RRV, in us being kind of… We were a tool for the Ministry of Finance, to audit that your money was spent in the best possible way and so on. And we probably regarded… At least in management, at RRV, there were some who regarded PA as a bit inferior to RRV.

This understanding of PA as less independent than RRV probably remains, he explained, “they are not as good as us”. Furthermore, RRV has made larger and more extensive audits, while PA has looked more at details, he added. Here, the issue of competence came into the picture.

Competence was also central when interviewees responded to questions on external reputation. These two aspects – independence and competence – would continue to be central throughout this merger process.

At the same time as RRV personnel, like this auditor, often described themselves as superior to PA, they also often argued that they thought PA felt superior due to their position under Parliament. Ron, the same RRV auditor as above, continued:

Being employed by Parliament, you see, that is high-class. It is kind of the Parliament of the people in some way. You see that when you visit Parliament and then you visit RRV, it is all the difference in the world.

Parliament is more luxurious, there are more rooms, chairs, furniture, cutlery, you have everything you want, library… They can treat themselves more on it and they have treated themselves during the years. […] It is high-class to socialize in the halls of power, in some way.

At PA, auditors described how they liked to work under Parliament, but at the same time they also described their audits as rather independent, despite of the relationship to members of Parliament.

Especially, they emphasized that a broad, general competence and high productivity were important at PA. They were proud to describe that their productivity rates were far higher than at RRV, and argued that considering that it was taxpayers’ money that they were spending, keeping productivity numbers up was a fundamental moral obligation for a national audit institution.

Most PA personnel were aware that Rachel and some other RRV employees claimed that RRV were more independent than PA. These matters are further described by Ahlbäck (1999).

What happened during the first, later shelved, merger preparations process? This will be addressed in the following.