Thank you for your efforts to date focusing on budget accountability through
considering the authorization of comprehensive performance audits. Olympias
willingness to focus on priorities of government and requiring meaningful
performance audits signals loudly and clearly to Washingtonians that the
legislature is responsive to the peoples demands for transparency
and accountability of tax dollars.
Thanks to the efforts of Speaker Frank Chopp working with the state auditor,
a potential amendment to the current performance audit bill (HB 1064) offers
the cleanest and best language weve seen to date to authorize independent
and comprehensive performance audits. The highlights of this language include:
authorizing the state auditor to conduct independent and comprehensive
performance audits and allowing the state auditor alone to set the audit
scope;
creating a citizen advisory board to provide input
to the state auditor, but not granting that board veto power
over audit scopes or areas for review;
requiring the state auditor make the final performance audit reports
available to the public and post the reports on the internet (online);
authorizing the state auditor to conduct performance audits of
local governments using local funds if a local government requests such
a review,
requiring two one-hundredths of one percent of the states
total general fund state budget each biennium be set aside to fund the
performance audits initiated by the state auditor (approximately $5 million
for the 2005-07 biennium); and
does not sunset the performance audit authorization.
We believe this language is superior to what was provided to those of you
who signed our performance audit pledge this past year. Its adoption would
make any initiative to the people on this topic a moot issue.
Please let me know if we can be of any assistance as you consider this
reform.
Sincerely,
Jason Mercier, Budget Analyst
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
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]?"