Our accounts, our point of view

HERMANO TAVARES

I present to the University Community an expanded version of the presentation to the University Council (CONSU) on December 18, 2001, at the extraordinary meeting that decided the 2002 budget. This article is an accounting of UNICAMP's budget, in the period beginning in 1998 and ends in 2001. During this period, it is worth noting, we experienced intense variations in ICMS. This biennium was, from a revenue point of view, one of the worst in the last 12 years, with ICMS collection suffering an intense reduction in 1998, even in nominal values. But we also went through better periods, such as in 2000, when it was possible to improve salaries and resolve debt issues at the University.

Let's start this exhibition with the year 1998, in which the general situation of the University was very critical. That year's budget forecast, approved by CONSU in December 1997, assumed that there could be an increase in nominal values ​​of 6% in RTE (State Treasury Resources). However, what occurred was a decline in ICMS in nominal terms.

This same budget forecast contained recommendations, also endorsed by CONSU, of measures relating to various issues, including excessive spending on water, electricity, transport and food. None of them had been implemented until May 1998. At the end of the first four months of 1998, it was already clear how difficult the situation was, especially due to the abrupt drop in ICMS revenue. In these initial months, the payroll consumed no less than 99,9% of the State Treasury Resources!

As soon as I took over as Rector, on April 22, 1998, I also became president of the Council of Rectors of São Paulo State Universities (CRUESP). Soon afterwards, CRUESP held meetings to discuss that year's salary adjustment. Based on the expectation that there could be a budget recovery through an increase in ICMS, a 3% salary adjustment was agreed with our colleagues at Fórum das Seis.

The year 1998 finally closed with a value of State Treasury Resources that confirmed a decline of around 2,5% in nominal terms, in relation to 1997. For this reason, the participation of the Salary Leaf in the portion of RTE allocated to UNICAMP reached a value of 95,6%. I would like to draw attention to the fact that this is the highest Salary Commitment value that Unicamp has had in its entire history and, in particular, in the history of its autonomy. Capital and funding expenses were necessarily contained within this environment, which brought clear losses to the University. It is important to highlight that, despite this containment, the cost was around 16,5% of the RTE. Expenses with salaries, added to funding and capital, amounted to more than 110% of the State Treasury Resources. With this scenario, therefore, debts were necessarily contracted.

We also had, in the case of Unicamp, very important legal labor issues. I will mention two of them: the labor injunction resulting from the URP, which involved 512 employees and was estimated at R$70 million, an amount that Unicamp was obviously unable to pay. We also had a problem with the INSS, regarding the loss of the philanthropy certificate that granted us exemption from paying the employer's part of the INSS for CLT employees. Because of this, Unicamp management had contacted the relevant forums to try to correct this situation. Given the impossibility of recovering the philanthropy certificate, there was a presumed debt of around R$100 million.

In this adverse situation, which was added to the imminent and already announced exchange rate crisis that was about to occur in the country, we decided, especially because we had no other alternative, that the only way would be to adopt a policy of frank austerity in relation to capital and costs, as well as an extension of our pending issues with IPESP. It is worth remembering that, since 1997, Unicamp has not collected the amounts corresponding to the contributions of its employees to IPESP.

In the case of INSS, we managed with the Ministry of Social Security to suspend the assessment of past debt, but we had to assume the payment, from now on, of the social security contributions of our employees hired by the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws). This implies an approximate value of R$20 million per year, incorporated into the salary expenses present in the Unicamp Budget, in an additional expense of 4% to 5% of the payroll.

As for the URP, the precatório involved a large number of employees and the issue had been caused by determinations of the State Government, prior to autonomy. After intense work with the Judiciary, we managed to reduce the value from R$70 million to around R$11 million. Furthermore, we were also able to pay this amount in installments over five years. These actions began to be implemented in 1998, but were only actually completed in 2000.

As we moved into 1999, the difficulties persisted. In January of that year, shortly after the announcement of the electoral results, the Brazilian exchange rate crisis exploded, joining other national problems with clear consequences for the ICMS. In the 1999 Budget, we had deeper cuts in capital and funding and, in the period from January to April, our payroll exceeded 100% of State Treasury Resources. However, other negotiations began and had some success. These included the normalization of transfers relating to the Kandir Law as of August 1999 and the payment of arrears relating to the months of January to July 1999 in installments during the year 2000.

In reality, the fact that the Government agreed to carry out this negotiation already showed that there was beginning to be a certain slack in the State's finances, that is, the great crisis occurred approximately from 1997 until July 1999. Thus, in 1999, in order to overcome During this acute budget crisis, we carried out careful studies and rationalized capital and funding expenditures. IPESP, however, continued without receiving its payments. Very strong pressure came from all sides, especially from the Unicamp hospital area. This, as we know, is the area with the greatest social involvement and, for this and other reasons, is the sector that exerts the greatest pressure on funding and capital expenditure. In the same way that I highlighted the fact that in 1998 the greatest commitment to Folha in the history of autonomy occurred, I would also like to highlight that 1999 is the only year in which CRUESP was unable to give salary adjustments.

The 1998/1999 crisis made us learn some lessons. The first is that it was necessary to increase the transparency of the budget and monitor it in more detail, with the aim of reaching greater consensus on the measures necessary to face the crisis. It was clear that the budget revisions adopted in 1998/1999 should become a perennial practice. It was also clear that we had to distinguish between permanent and non-permanent expenses. Distinguish expenses that imply lasting consequences, such as hiring a person who will in principle stay here thirty years, from those corresponding to investments, which are made once.

We also learned, from the lessons taught in this period of great difficulty, that we must prioritize decentralization actions, in addition to openly working with a methodology that implements planning with the support and participation of members of the University Council.

It must also be very clear that our current expenses are almost completely fixed, while our revenues are variable, very variable, depending on the ICMS. The fact that we have variable revenues and fixed expenses recommends that, in the long term, we adopt strategies to implement a fund at the University that can compensate for these ICMS variations.

For the Health Area, as I have already expressed to our leaders of this important sector of the University, I believe that we should evolve towards gradual autonomy. We should think of a method of compensation between the budget and the increases that we may eventually raise in SUS resources and in resources from health plans (action being studied by the Government). Still in this area, I would like to point out that it was possible, through actions with the Federal Government, especially with the Chamber of Deputies, to obtain allocations from the national budget for investments in the Health Area in the order of R$ 5 million in 1999 and 2000; in 2001 there was a new contribution. These appropriations, although some of them were approved in 1999, only take effect after a few years. We currently have the construction of Block “D” and Hospital Dia at an advanced stage.

Read more...