Administrative collaboration mechanisms were also improved, transferring new powers and responsibilities to states and municipalities, such as the administration of small and medium-sized taxpayers. This deepened during the first years of this century, when I collaborated with the Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP). It is evident that this is not enough, since to think in national terms, we must also consider the dynamics of state and municipal revenues, which, in some of them, has not been the most optimal or transparent. I recall that 20 years ago some entities questioned the quality and veracity of the information related to oil revenue collection; fortunately, the System Oversight Committee took on a thorough review of the issue with positive results. The governors of the time endorsed the calculation procedure and their satisfaction with the results regarding the surpluses. The advances of our National Fiscal Coordination System (SNCF) in recent years confirm the relevance of government coordination to make public finances more efficient in tax collection, the effective and transparent exercise of state spending, and proper management of local public debt. Since then, transfers via participations and federalized spending have been unprecedented in the history of fiscal coordination. It is a space for negotiation and review in different transparency and accountability forums, but more importantly, it is the coordinated work of shared responsibility in fiscal matters. At that time, the creation of state fiscal coordination systems was encouraged in many entities; I particularly remember the relevant cases of Guerrero and Zacatecas, as well as other states where even municipal public debt was contracted as a fund allocated to those municipalities with solvency for its payment, in a municipal coordination exercise that turned out to be relevant. Not only did progress advance in those states in the cadastre, public property registry, and drinking water systems, with administrative collaboration and property tax collection. Progress was also made on legal issues related to state-municipality relations, as well as transparency and accountability through their own oversight committees. All important topics for the modernization of municipal public agendas. However, conflicts have arisen since then, even lawsuits that I had to handle during my time at the SHCP at the beginning of this century. Institutional mechanisms were created to clarify differences, whether in legal interpretation, ignorance of legislation, or a violation of the law by some state or municipal authority. An example at that time was the conflict that arose between the municipality of Acapulco and the government of Guerrero, in the times when the municipal president was Zeferino Torreblanca, later governor of the state. It is interesting the controversy he presented before the Fiscal Coordination Board, which was resolved in favor of the municipality when Torreblanca was already governor of the state. It was a milestone where the federal entities assumed a common front and achieved positive results; there was greater awareness among the states, the Permanent Commission of Fiscal Officials (CPFF), and the fiscal authorities. Today, the issue that may arise is that it has achieved significant progress in municipal-level auditing; before 2018, only a few municipalities and only one fund were audited. To date, all participable funds are audited, and progress has been made in almost half of the country's municipalities. It is a relevant task in recent years, but there are limits; for example, states like Oaxaca, with about 400 municipalities, are governed by a system of uses and customs, as happens in various southeastern states; however, the advances have been important. The above constituted a significant advance in fiscal coordination; its utility has been unquestionable.
