Purchasing and supplies bring together contractors and suppliers in keen competition to get decisions taken which to them mean feast or famine. The competition and what is at stake – money, and survival - can make people engage in questionable behavior and actions. This fact of life is brought out in the cases appearing in this section. In the first case, The Stores Received Voucher, an accountant signs a Stores Received Voucher (SRV) to the effect that certain goods have been received. This action he takes on trust, seeing that the SRV had been signed by the storekeeper and the internal auditor. When, in the course of time, the accountant discovers that the goods were never delivered, a delegation of the accomplices comes to see him, trying to persuade him "to understand" and offers him a portion of the deal. In Inferior Goods, a junior officer who will not take the word of his boss that goods ordered have been received, insists on seeing the goods. The result of his review reveals that the goods are inferior to what had originally been ordered and that the price for the goods is even higher. 

A lot of the whistle-blower comes through the case, A Whistle-Blower. A budget coordinator, responsible for the acquisition of stores, will not be part of a collusive scheme involving his boss and suppliers and so he reports the deal to the head of the organization. In the next case, An Opportunity to Make " Little Money, collusion between a budget officer and a principal stores officer to assist a supplier leads to what they describe as "a handsome reward" Some suppliers are ready to give unsolicited gifts as narrated in the case, An Envelope for the Budget Coordinator. The envelope is given as "Thank You". In A Boot Full of Free Stationery, a purchasing officer goes to buy items from the shop of a supplier who does business with his ministry. He ends up coming away with the boot of his car filled with items he is willing to pay for, but which are in fact given free to him. As a measure of control and to ensure that organizations get value for money, some organizations require that purchases should normally be done after a review of three pro-forma invoices. The cases, Between the Boss and Spare-Parts Dealers and One Shop, Three Pro-Forma Invoices, may shake our faith in pro-forma invoices presented by purchasing officers to management for purchasing decisions to be made. 

1 The Stores Received Voucher My duties as an accountant with my organization included the signing of Local Purchase Orders (LPOs) for the purchase of stores. I was also to certify that the items ordered had been received by signing the Stores Received Voucher (SRV) after the storekeeper and internal auditor had signed their portions to that effect. (Until this incident, I accepted their word that stores had been received without any verification.) It was getting to the end of the financial year and we had some balances left on some of our accounts. A decision was, therefore, taken to purchase some items for use. The items to be purchased were forty wheelbarrows, two hundred pieces each of pickaxes, spades, shovels, rakes, and matchets. After quotations had been received from bidders, an LPO was issued for the supply of these items. Three days later, the storekeeper brought me the Stores Received Voucher (SRV) to certify. He and the internal auditor had already signed their portions as having received the stores "in good condition". The invoices were, therefore, processed and payment was made to the supplier. About two months after this transaction, one of our regional accountants brought a payment voucher for processing for the purchase of three wheelbarrows, five each of spades, pickaxes, rakes and matchets for use at the Regional Office. I refused to authorize the processing of the voucher and directed the regional accountant to bring up a requisition for the supply of the items from our stores. He did. But when he presented it to the storekeeper, the stock level was said to be "NIL". I asked the storekeeper to show me the ‘bin cards' of the items. The records showed that he, indeed, had no stock of those items in his store. There was also no record of the stores purchased two months earlier. He (the store-keeper) could not give me any explanation for the non-receipt of the stores purchased. After the close of work that same day, I was at home, at about 7:00 p.m., when a "delegation" came to see me. The "delegation" included the storekeeper, the internal auditor, some senior staff members and the supplier. Their mission: to give me my portion of the cost of the goods that were supposed to have been supplied. The money (about GHc450,000), according to the "delegation”, was to have been given to me some weeks earlier by the supplier but he traveled, hence his inability to give me my share until I detected the deal. I refused to take the money. (Perhaps the position would have been different if the presentation had been done before I detected the fraud.) My refusal to accept the money brought out the complexities of the problem: I had already signed the SRV" in blind" and was, therefore, liable for any loss or impropriety arising from the transaction. Post-auditing had been done and "confirmed" that the items were in stock: any revelation to the contrary would cost all those involved their jobs. The impression I gathered at the meeting with the "delegation" was that this was a normal practice in most departments and that pursuing the matter would not even be in my interest. I, therefore, took the money. They thanked me for my "co-operation" and left. I assured them I would not report the conduct of the storekeeper and internal auditor. 

Questions that may be useful for discussion 

1. What examples from your working experience were you reminded of as you read the case? 

2. Comment on the practice of rushing to spend unspent money before the end of the fiscal year. 

3. Was the accountant lazy when he signed the document without actual verification? 

4. What would you do when told that your colleagues cheat? Will you keep quiet or ask for a transfer? 

5. What title would you give to this reading?