A Constituição Federal de 1988 alterou profundamente os processos de elaboração do planejamento e do orçamento públicos, no Brasil. Essas alterações implicaram reformulações tanto nos próprios processos de planejamento quanto em processos de trabalho, modelos gerenciais, sistemas de informação e mecanismos de contabilidade e controle na administração pública. Sobre esses processos, avalie as afirmativas a seguir.

I - O Plano Plurianual deve definir as prioridades do governo durante o período que vai do primeiro ao quarto ano de um mandato presidencial.

II - As prioridades dispostas no Plano Plurianual são estabelecidas com base em Projeto de Lei Orçamentária Anual (LOA), anteriormente aprovado pelo Congresso Nacional.

III - A Lei Orçamentária autoriza as despesas, de acordo com a estimativa de receitas e a previsão de arrecadação, definindo que o Poder Executivo deve submeter ao Congresso Nacional projeto de lei de crédito adicional, caso necessite incorrer em despesas acima do limite que está previsto na LOA.

IV - A Lei de Diretrizes Orçamentárias (LDO) é uma lei ordinária, válida apenas para um exercício.

Estão corretas APENAS as afirmativas

. Sobre os sistemas informatizados utilizados no âmbito da União, para fins de processamento orçamentário e financeiro, analise as afirmativas a seguir.

I - O processamento dos dados relativos à preparação da elaboração orçamentária é realizado no SIDOR.

II - A abrangência do SIAFI não inclui as unidades gestoras brasileiras, situadas no exterior.

III - A Guia da Previdência Social - GPS - pode ser utilizada, no SIDOR, para efetuar as retenções de valores de terceiros ao INSS.

IV - O mecanismo de funcionamento da tabela de eventos possibilita fazer, no SIAFI, lançamentos contábeis em mais de uma unidade gestora.

Está correto APENAS o que se afirma em

. Sobre os princípios orçamentários, analise os itens a seguir.

I - A inclusão de dispositivo estranho à previsão da receita e à fixação da despesa na lei orçamentária anual fere o princípio da universalidade.

II - O princípio da unidade estabelece que o montante da despesa não deve ultrapassar a receita prevista para o período.

III - A vedação da apropriação de receitas de impostos a despesas específicas, salvo as exceções constitucionais, caracteriza o denominado princípio da não afetação das receitas.

IV - O princípio da publicidade prescreve que o conteúdo orçamentário deve ser divulgado por meio de veículos oficiais de comunicação, para o conhecimento público e para a eficácia de sua validade.

Estão corretos APENAS os itens

. Quanto às características da auditoria interna e externa, analise as afirmativas a seguir.

I - O processo pelo qual o auditor se certifica de que as demonstrações financeiras representam adequadamente, em todos os aspectos relevantes, a posição patrimonial e financeira da empresa, por meio da emissão de parecer, caracteriza a auditoria externa.

II - O exercício da auditoria interna é privativo de contabilista registrado no Conselho Regional de Contabilidade da jurisdição.

III - A principal característica da auditoria interna é a independência, ou seja, não possui vínculo com a empresa auditada.

IV - O parecer do auditor independente pode ser classificado em: sem ressalva, com ressalva, adverso ou com abstenção de opinião.

Está correto SOMENTE o que se afirma em

. Um auditor do BACEN, no decorrer dos seus trabalhos, cumpriu o previsto nas Normas Brasileiras de Contabili- dade, ao realizar o seguinte procedimento:

Freedom of IMFormation

By Reza Moghadam
Posted on September 17, 2009 by iMFdirect

With the global financial crisis, the world is increasingly looking to the International Monetary Fund- not just for financing but as the global institution charged with overseeing members' economies and policies (what we call surveillance). It's easy to forget that only 10 years ago the Fund was a secretive institution. That's no longer the case. Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business.

The IMF today is a very open institution. The vast majority of our reports are published. The public can search the IMF's archives. And we are making lots of effort to reach out to external stakeholders.

The benefits of this increased transparency, both for the Fund's surveillance and lending activities, are indisputable. Transparency allows us to engage with the public and to build a broader understanding and support of what we do. It benefits the quality of our advice by subjecting our analysis to outside scrutiny. And more generally, it makes us more accountable for our advice and financial decisions. In all, it makes us a more effective and legitimate institution.

Frankly, the Fund cannot be a genuine leader on economic policy issues unless it is seen as transparent. We certainly would not have been able to achieve the major reforms of our lending frameworks and the increase in our financial resources had we not been seen as an open and transparent institution. Rightly, the public expects to know what we are up to.

At the same time, certain aspects of transparency remain controversial. Some believe that publication undermines candor in the reports, the frankness of discussions between staff and country authorities, and the Fund's role as trusted advisor.

Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business. We are gearing up to review the Fund's transparency policy, as part of our efforts to increase our effectiveness.

The IMF has come a long way over the last 10 years, and publication rates of reports are high. Raising them further is not the main issue, nor one that can easily be resolved without changes much of our membership would consider revolutionary (such as making publication mandatory). Rather, further efforts should focus on making progress on a broad front, on issues that may catch fewer headlines, but are nevertheless crucial:

• Reducing long publication lags. How can we simplify the cumbersome procedure for obtaining consent?
• Maintaining the integrity of reports. The IMF's analysis and advice must be, and be seen to be, convincing, candid, and independent. To this end, there is a long-standing and fundamental principle that Fund reports are not "negotiated" documents.
• Making the Fund's archives more accessible. The current setup for searching the archives-in particular the need to travel to Washington to gain full access to them-is outdated. We should also consider whether we can make some archived material available more quickly to the public.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/

The wordplay in the title refers to the fact that the

Freedom of IMFormation

By Reza Moghadam
Posted on September 17, 2009 by iMFdirect

With the global financial crisis, the world is increasingly looking to the International Monetary Fund- not just for financing but as the global institution charged with overseeing members' economies and policies (what we call surveillance). It's easy to forget that only 10 years ago the Fund was a secretive institution. That's no longer the case. Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business.

The IMF today is a very open institution. The vast majority of our reports are published. The public can search the IMF's archives. And we are making lots of effort to reach out to external stakeholders.

The benefits of this increased transparency, both for the Fund's surveillance and lending activities, are indisputable. Transparency allows us to engage with the public and to build a broader understanding and support of what we do. It benefits the quality of our advice by subjecting our analysis to outside scrutiny. And more generally, it makes us more accountable for our advice and financial decisions. In all, it makes us a more effective and legitimate institution.

Frankly, the Fund cannot be a genuine leader on economic policy issues unless it is seen as transparent. We certainly would not have been able to achieve the major reforms of our lending frameworks and the increase in our financial resources had we not been seen as an open and transparent institution. Rightly, the public expects to know what we are up to.

At the same time, certain aspects of transparency remain controversial. Some believe that publication undermines candor in the reports, the frankness of discussions between staff and country authorities, and the Fund's role as trusted advisor.

Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business. We are gearing up to review the Fund's transparency policy, as part of our efforts to increase our effectiveness.

The IMF has come a long way over the last 10 years, and publication rates of reports are high. Raising them further is not the main issue, nor one that can easily be resolved without changes much of our membership would consider revolutionary (such as making publication mandatory). Rather, further efforts should focus on making progress on a broad front, on issues that may catch fewer headlines, but are nevertheless crucial:

• Reducing long publication lags. How can we simplify the cumbersome procedure for obtaining consent?
• Maintaining the integrity of reports. The IMF's analysis and advice must be, and be seen to be, convincing, candid, and independent. To this end, there is a long-standing and fundamental principle that Fund reports are not "negotiated" documents.
• Making the Fund's archives more accessible. The current setup for searching the archives-in particular the need to travel to Washington to gain full access to them-is outdated. We should also consider whether we can make some archived material available more quickly to the public.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/

In terms of meaning, it is correct to affirm that

"I agree wholeheartedly with these transparency initiatives. I would also urge the IMF to keep going further forward particularly in regards to archives, as well as releasing country reports as part of a regular pattern of their activities, and to move to a system of releasing mandatory reports. In order for us not to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, we must be able to discern patterns from real world data. Secrecy is to be shunned since it promotes an imbalance in power and always leads to abuses.

" Rahim, on December 14th, 2009 at 12:41 am http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/ #comment-579

The comment above is in tune with Moghadam's ideas, because Rahim states that

Freedom of IMFormation

By Reza Moghadam
Posted on September 17, 2009 by iMFdirect

With the global financial crisis, the world is increasingly looking to the International Monetary Fund- not just for financing but as the global institution charged with overseeing members' economies and policies (what we call surveillance). It's easy to forget that only 10 years ago the Fund was a secretive institution. That's no longer the case. Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business.

The IMF today is a very open institution. The vast majority of our reports are published. The public can search the IMF's archives. And we are making lots of effort to reach out to external stakeholders.

The benefits of this increased transparency, both for the Fund's surveillance and lending activities, are indisputable. Transparency allows us to engage with the public and to build a broader understanding and support of what we do. It benefits the quality of our advice by subjecting our analysis to outside scrutiny. And more generally, it makes us more accountable for our advice and financial decisions. In all, it makes us a more effective and legitimate institution.

Frankly, the Fund cannot be a genuine leader on economic policy issues unless it is seen as transparent. We certainly would not have been able to achieve the major reforms of our lending frameworks and the increase in our financial resources had we not been seen as an open and transparent institution. Rightly, the public expects to know what we are up to.

At the same time, certain aspects of transparency remain controversial. Some believe that publication undermines candor in the reports, the frankness of discussions between staff and country authorities, and the Fund's role as trusted advisor.

Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business. We are gearing up to review the Fund's transparency policy, as part of our efforts to increase our effectiveness.

The IMF has come a long way over the last 10 years, and publication rates of reports are high. Raising them further is not the main issue, nor one that can easily be resolved without changes much of our membership would consider revolutionary (such as making publication mandatory). Rather, further efforts should focus on making progress on a broad front, on issues that may catch fewer headlines, but are nevertheless crucial:

• Reducing long publication lags. How can we simplify the cumbersome procedure for obtaining consent?
• Maintaining the integrity of reports. The IMF's analysis and advice must be, and be seen to be, convincing, candid, and independent. To this end, there is a long-standing and fundamental principle that Fund reports are not "negotiated" documents.
• Making the Fund's archives more accessible. The current setup for searching the archives-in particular the need to travel to Washington to gain full access to them-is outdated. We should also consider whether we can make some archived material available more quickly to the public.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/

The only argument that CANNOT be considered supportive of publishing the IMF documents is that the

Freedom of IMFormation

By Reza Moghadam
Posted on September 17, 2009 by iMFdirect

With the global financial crisis, the world is increasingly looking to the International Monetary Fund- not just for financing but as the global institution charged with overseeing members' economies and policies (what we call surveillance). It's easy to forget that only 10 years ago the Fund was a secretive institution. That's no longer the case. Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business.

The IMF today is a very open institution. The vast majority of our reports are published. The public can search the IMF's archives. And we are making lots of effort to reach out to external stakeholders.

The benefits of this increased transparency, both for the Fund's surveillance and lending activities, are indisputable. Transparency allows us to engage with the public and to build a broader understanding and support of what we do. It benefits the quality of our advice by subjecting our analysis to outside scrutiny. And more generally, it makes us more accountable for our advice and financial decisions. In all, it makes us a more effective and legitimate institution.

Frankly, the Fund cannot be a genuine leader on economic policy issues unless it is seen as transparent. We certainly would not have been able to achieve the major reforms of our lending frameworks and the increase in our financial resources had we not been seen as an open and transparent institution. Rightly, the public expects to know what we are up to.

At the same time, certain aspects of transparency remain controversial. Some believe that publication undermines candor in the reports, the frankness of discussions between staff and country authorities, and the Fund's role as trusted advisor.

Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business. We are gearing up to review the Fund's transparency policy, as part of our efforts to increase our effectiveness.

The IMF has come a long way over the last 10 years, and publication rates of reports are high. Raising them further is not the main issue, nor one that can easily be resolved without changes much of our membership would consider revolutionary (such as making publication mandatory). Rather, further efforts should focus on making progress on a broad front, on issues that may catch fewer headlines, but are nevertheless crucial:

• Reducing long publication lags. How can we simplify the cumbersome procedure for obtaining consent?
• Maintaining the integrity of reports. The IMF's analysis and advice must be, and be seen to be, convincing, candid, and independent. To this end, there is a long-standing and fundamental principle that Fund reports are not "negotiated" documents.
• Making the Fund's archives more accessible. The current setup for searching the archives-in particular the need to travel to Washington to gain full access to them-is outdated. We should also consider whether we can make some archived material available more quickly to the public.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/

The expression in boldtype and the item in parenthesis are semantically equivalent in