QUESTION 1 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 (SIRV) 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. Afler quotations had been received from bidders, an LPO was issued for the supply of these items. Threc 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. Post-auditing had also been done and "confirmed" that the items were in strok. Atout two months after this transaction, one of our regional accountants brought a payment voucher for processing for the purchase of three whielbarrows, five each of spades, pickaxes, rakes and matchets for use at the: Regional Office. I refused to authorise the processing of the voucher and dirccted the regional accountant to bring up a requisition for the supply of the items from our stores. This 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. Afler the close of work that same day, I was at home, at about 7:00p.m., when a "delegation" came to sec me. The "delegation" included the storekeeper, the internal auditor, some senior staff members and the supplier. Their nission was 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 travelled, hence his inability to give me my share until I detected the deal. I refused to take the money. 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. 1. Identify ten (10) issues involved in the case study. 2. Comment on the practice of rushing to spend unspent money before the end of the fiscal year. 3. What would be your position if the presentation had been done before you detected the fraud. 4. How will you handle this situation differently? QUESTION 2 Esi Mansa, a Junior Information Assistant was employed in the Ghana Civil Service on 1 st December 2010 and assigned to the Department of Kanawu. In 2016 , unhappy that she had been on the same grade all these years, decided to improve herself by pursuing online courses with the University of Communication Studies. She eventually obtained a Master's Degree in Information Management in 2021. Satisfied with her achievements, she decided to move from the Civil Service to the Ghana Legal Service so that she can have better remuneration and enjoy other benefits applicable in the Service. She wrote to the Ghana Legal Service (GLS) of her intentions and sought their approval to move into the GLS, requesting the GLS to take into consideration all her years of work in the Civil Service. She addressed the letter to the Officer in Charge of Human Affairs and copied the Attorney General, GLS. After watiting for one year without a response, she visited the Ghana Legal Service to follow up and was surprised that no action had been taken on her application. Identify five (5) issues raised in the case study above and discuss three (3) of them. QUESTION 3 FLOOD PREVENTION AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT PROJECT Urban areas in Ghana face unprecedented challenges including rising income disparities and increased vulnerability to disaster and climate change impacts. Parts of the Tano region, for example, have been subjected to perennial flooding occasioned by, poor sanitation and drainage infrastructure, overcrowded spaces, and weak regulatory enforcement with respect to sanitation, drainage and waste management. To address these issues, the Government of Ghana in collaboration with the World Bank introduced the Ghana Flood and Disaster Management Project (GFDMP) in December 2020. The objective was to strengthen flood and solid waste management in the Tano region, particularly, in communities within the Tano River basin, improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable communities in the Tano basin and foster adaptation of the flood management infrastructure to climate change in the Tano Region. The Ministry of Flood and Disaster Management has put in place several interventions to improve on flood management and disaster prevention. These include acclimate-resilient drainage and flood mitigation measures, solid waste management capacity improvement, and participatory upgrade of targeted low-prone Low-Income Communities and emergency response units. Structural measures to mitigate flood impacts in the Tano River Basin would be developed, non-structural measures to improve flood warning and preparedness to be deployed, reduce the amount of solid waste flowing into the Tano channel, implement Community-based solid waste management interventions and community campaign and improve physical planning and coordination in the Tano River Basin. A total of US $45.25 million would be spent on the resilient drainage and flood mitigation measures, US\$30.65 million on Solid Waste Management Capacity Improvements, US\$ 19.85 million on Participatory Upgrading of Targeted Flood Prone Low-Income Communities and physical planning support whilst US\$4.25 million would be required for institutional strengthening, capacity building, supervision, monitoring and evaluation, and project managernent. As a Deputy Director of the Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate of your institution, use the concept of the logical framework or model to analyse this project identifying the inputs, key activities, outputs, outcomes, impacts, assumptions and external factors