Alternative procedures for resolving conflicts within the Courts of Accounts

Abstract

Consensus-based approaches in Brazilian Courts of Accounts aim to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes between oversight bodies and audited public entities, moving beyond the traditional enforcement-oriented model. By prioritizing dialogue and jointly negotiated solutions to public management problems, these mechanisms contribute to improved governance, enhanced administrative efficiency, and the safeguarding of public funds. This study examines the institutional functions of the Courts of Accounts and assesses the feasibility of adopting consensual instruments to achieve their core mandate, discussing the applicable regulatory framework and the main available tools, particularly the Termo de Ajustamento de Gestão (TAG) and Technical Panels. The study analyzes four formalized conciliation experiences – two within the Bahia State Court of Accounts (TCE/BA), one in the Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts (TCU), and one in the Rondônia State Court of Accounts (TCE/RO) – highlighting their benefits, limitations, and challenges. Methodologically, this is an exploratory and descriptive study with a qualitative approach, developed through case studies and guided by the hypothetical-deductive method. The study contributes to the state of the art on consensualism in Courts of Accounts by demonstrating the advantages of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and by providing critical analyses of the selected cases, identifying the consensual solutions adopted and their outcomes. Furthermore, it seeks to encourage Public Administration, particularly Courts of Accounts and public managers, to recognize consensualism as a legitimate and effective instrument for resolving disputes and strengthening external oversight activities.