by Jason Mercier, Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Just when it started to look inevitable that comprehensive performance audits
would finally become law, Governor Christine Gregoire's staff is now blurring
that vision.
Despite claiming that "change is here and more is coming," Gregoire
appears to be doing her best impersonation of former Governor Gary Locke.
As governor, Locke routinely vetoed bills authorizing the state auditor
to conduct performance audits of state government. Based on testimony provided
by Governor Gregoire's office at two recent performance audit hearings,
it appears that instead of "change," voters can expect more of
the same.
Consider the following
testimony (in italics) from Mary Campbell, speaking on behalf of Gregoire
at both legislative performance audit hearings:
As you know, Governor Gregoire expressed her commitment to improving
management, accountability and performance in state government in her
inaugural address last week. The Governor agrees that citizens deserve
accountability of public programs, and that public programs must continuously
improve in quality, efficiency and effectiveness in order to increase
the public trust.
So far so good; but wait, there's more.
This bill would schedule all state programs to be audited in turn
against an extensive list of assessment criteria. Such comprehensive audits
are very expensive. . . . And, in the end, we have no guarantee that a
wholesale review of every agency will generate sufficient real savings
to justify the cost.
Well, Texas isn't complaining about the $16 billion in identified savings
since 1991 as a result of comprehensive performance audits. Nor is California,
with its identified potential savings of $32 billion over a five year period.
But those are just billions of dollars in identified savings,
nothing to get too excited aboutespecially for a state that hopes
to spend more than a billion dollars over forecasted revenue.
Many people say government should act more like a business.'
Although government does not have profit as its ultimate objective, we
think we can learn from business about how to improve the way we manage
ourselves. If top to bottom performance audits really delivered the returns
that their proponents promise, we would expect to see businesses doing
them! But what we found is that businesses do not use regular full performance
audits to improve performance, or to save money.
Gregoire should remember that competition forces business to perform performance
reviews every day to help streamline costs and increase productivity. Thankfully
Sen. Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup), Chair of the Senate Government Operations
and Elections Committee, had this response to the governor's business analogy:
"When we look at businesses and their use of performance audits, it's
the chair's opinion that often time the competitive nature of the business
environment, unless you are efficient, you do not survive. In state government,
we do not have that type of competition. Therefore you do need bench marking;
you do need an independent source coming in and comparing the efficiency
of that agency with like agencies in other states, for example."
...we are not sure that performance audits are the silver bullet.'
They might be part of a package, but we think that there are more cost-effective
options to improve how public programs are managed now - and into the
future.
While performance audits may not be a "silver bullet," they are
more effective than the "blanks" now at the disposal of the state
auditor to measure the performance of state government. It's unfortunate
that Governor Gregoire appears ready to follow in former Governor Locke's
footsteps and stand in the way of the state auditor conducting independent
and comprehensive performance audits.
So much for "change is here."
Jason Mercier is a budget analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation,
a non-partisan, public policy watchdog organization, focused on advancing
individual liberty, a free-market economy, and limited and responsible government.
Contact: Jason Mercier | Budget
Research Analyst | 360.956.3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"