SHILLONG: Although the budgetary outlay for the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs (DSYA) amounted to Rs 25.06 crore for the year 2011-12, this represented only a little over a third of one percent of Meghalaya’s budget during the period and the allocation of “negligible resources” indicates the “low priority accorded by the State” towards development of sport, according to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report for the period.
The CAG report lists a number of areas where the state has fallen short. The government’s outlay is “paltry”, it says. Sports infrastructure is lacking in some districts and what facilities exist are often the victims of a “lack of seriousness in maintenance”. The report also describes “abnormal delays” in taking up and completing projects.
One of the first failings noted in the report is the lack of a State Sports Policy (SSP), even after more than 40 years of statehood, which would lay out a long-term plan for the development of sport in Meghalaya.
An effective SSP could also benefit the financial management of the state when it comes to sports.
Several instances of irregularities were noted by the CAG, including issues with the diversion of funds and cash awards, disbursement of grants-in-aid and non-utilisation of funds.
Examples of these include Rs 21 lakh spent by the DYSA Director on digital cameras, handy cams and public address systems that were then issued to the District Sports Officers, contrary to the purpose of the funds, which were meant to purchase sports equipment for District Training Centres.
The DSYA is able to provide grants to clubs, associations, NGOs, schools, etc in kind, but has been doing so with cash, contrary to the rules governing disbursements of grants-in-aid. Even so, many of the cheques issued to these organisations are still with the DSYA, meaning that the funds are not being utilised.
The state government oftentimes gives out cash awards to sportspersons for notable achievements, but the CAG was far from happy with the instance where Rs 19 lakh was distributed without any receipts being received from the awardees.
The DYSA sanctioned Rs 19 lakh in 2008 for 68 medal-winning athletes and four coaches that year. However, in 2009, Rs 3 lakh of that amount was given to two state boxers who were not on the list of athletes; no reason for this disbursement was on record or could be provided to the auditors.
Furthermore, not one payee receipt was produced during the audit, rendering the CAG unable to ascertain whether the funds were used as prescribed.
The creation of new sports infrastructure is another area where the state is falling down, according to the report. Although several new facilities have been created in Meghalaya in the last few years, many more have yet to get off the ground despite the funding available from the state and central governments.
Curious uses of the funds available were also noted by the CAG.
Between 2002-04, the Centre had agreed to help with the construction of 13 projects, sharing the expenses with the State.
Central assistance would only arrive after Meghalaya had shown that it had incurred its share of the project costs.
By April 2005 Rs 3.35 crore of central funds were released to Meghalaya after the state had claimed to have spent Rs 5.10 crore on 10 of the 13 projects. However, scrutiny of the records revealed that Meghalaya’s expenditure was not solely used on those 10 facilities, but also on various other sports infrastructure.
Rs 2.52 crore of those central funds were then parked in a fixed deposit by the State Sports Council of Meghalaya (SSCM) – an autonomous body whose main purpose is to create and maintain the sports infrastructure – despite New Delhi’s instructions that unutilised funds be returned immediately.
Even when projects are completed successfully, other problems can emerge.
For example, the CAG report elaborates on a case where a squash court in Tura was completed in a year and within budget, but was almost immediately occupied by police personnel, preventing its use by the public. The court was constructed in 2003 at a cost of Rs 21.50 lakh and remained occupied by police up until the date of the audit.
The CAG also found deficiencies in the DSYA’s coaching arrangements.
In all, there were 31 coaches and instructors employed by the department as on March 31, 2012. Out of 24 coaches, seven were post in the DSYA, which the auditor found not to be prudent given that the department is basically an administrative office. The seven include Meghalaya’s only basketball, archery and badminton coaches.
The DSYA has also not issued any guidelines to the coaches and instructors, nor does it monitor their work.
The report also suggested that the department ensure that the coaches are up-to-date on their skills, recommending continual training for coaches. It also noted that the DSYA does not use experts in the fields of nutrition, psychology, etc, to provide further support.
The lack of monitoring is a major issue, according to the CAG.
A committee was set up for this purpose by the DSYA in 2009, but it has not inspected or verified any of the construction works executed by the SSCM. The committee has also only met on four occasions when it should have come together at least 10 times since its formation.
The SSCM did not provide enough information with regards to the schemes to the committee, which meant that “all projects/schemes…undertaken by the SSCM were not monitored by any agency,” the report says.
The SSCM, for its part, is supposed to meet four times a year, but the Council did not convene even once during 2007-12.
In conclusion, the report states that sporting talent is not lacking in Meghalaya, but athletes are being hampered by many shortcomings on the part of government bodies, which is somewhat ironic given that many officials, in speeches at sporting functions, have been encouraging the youth to consider taking up a career in sports.
