by Jason Mercier
It's official: a majority of our legislators don't trust the state auditor.
How else do you explain their refusal to grant the state auditor the authority
to conduct independent comprehensive performance audits of state government
without having to first receive the permission of an unelected political
board?
Never mind the fact that the state auditor is elected by the people and
is directly accountable to us; apparently this check and balance isn't comforting
enough for Olympia, which fears the state auditor may run amok on an accountability
power trip. And that would be a bad thing for the taxpayers?
For those who believed the legislature would finally do the right thing,
myself included, the closeness of its failure is not comforting. Three votes
and one wordthat's how close Washington came to embracing meaningful
independent comprehensive performance audits.
As it stands now, Initiative
900 is the last proposal standing that allows the state auditor to do
the job we hired him to do without him having to jump through political
hoops.
Sure the legislature passed bills authorizing performance audits, but they're
not independent or comprehensive.
Consider this scenario. The legislature is considering billions of dollars
in tax increases to fund transportation construction projects. Realizing
this massive infusion of cash is about to occur, the state auditor determines
it would be beneficial for the taxpayers to be assured this tax investment
will be well spent. As such, the state auditor decides to look at the economy,
effectiveness and efficiency of the state's prevailing wage and project
labor agreements effects on the costs and performance of transportation
projects.
Although the state auditor may believe such a performance audit would be
beneficial, let's say he is unable to convince the ten-member unelected
political board (of which he is a non-voting member and prohibited
from serving as chair) to agree to this performance audit. Consequence?
The performance audit never occurs. There is no tie-breaker in the bill
if the state auditor and the unelected political board disagree. This is
not an independent performance audit process.
By the way, such an audit would be prohibited by the approved bill anyway.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is explicitly exempted from performance
audits by the unelected political board and state auditor. Instead, any
performance audit of DOT is left to the unelected Transportation
Performance Audit Board. This is not a comprehensive performance audit
process.
Had just two representatives and one senator changed their vote, the people
would have been able to benefit from truly independent comprehensive performance
audits. Only one word needed to change. Instead of the unelected political
board establishing the criteria for performance audits, the state auditor
would have been authorized. Unfortunately, amendments offered in the House
and Senate to grant this independent authority failed by a combined three
votes. Three votes that should have been secured had all the members who
signed our performance audit pledge last year honored their word.
That pledge, signed by seventy legislators, read in part: "I pledge
to support independent comprehensive performance audits of state
agencies. The scope of performance audits should be established by the
elected state auditor, not an unelected group of citizens appointed by the
governor and legislature."
Three votes and one word is all that was needed for the legislature to
do the right thing. Instead those three votes and one word have now left
it to the people to untie the state auditor's hands to measure the performance
of state spending.
Jason Mercier is a budget research 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.
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]?"