Search EFFWA Site:

EFF's Election Report ·  
Gonzales Letter ·  
Welfare Reform ·  
Boeing Contract ·  
Budget & Taxes ·  
Business Climate ·  
K-12 Fact Sheet ·  
EFF Health Study ·  
Paycheck Protection ·  
Transportation ·  
Unemployment Ins. ·  

Receive Updates ·  
Bookmark EFF ·  
Contribute ·  
EFF in the News ·  
How Can I Help? ·  
Join EFF ·  
Media Center ·  

COMMENTARY

April 8, 2005

Legislature doesn't trust state auditor

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 word—that'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.

Additional Information
Senate fails to adopt independent performance audits by one vote
Performance audit bill striker?
EFF performance audit pledge
Pledge signers

Contact: Booker Stallworth | Communications Director | 360.956.3482


Evergreen Freedom Foundation
P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
Phone: (360) 956-3482, Fax: (360) 352-1874
Email: effwa@effwa.org


Election Reform


Grassroots Washington

Performance Audit Pledge
View pledge results

Health Plan 4 Life

Ten-Minute Citizen

WashingtonVotes.org

ChoosingLiberty.org

1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance

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]?"

- Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46)
(360) 786-7886

Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..."

Court of Appeals Ruling AG's WEA Appeal What is the WEA Hiding? Determining Government's Core Functions Priorities of Government Stewardship Series School Directors' Handbook Professional Choices For WA Educators Congressional Testimony (6/20/02) Agency Rule Change Request Social Security Calculator Tax Dividend Calculator Public Records Requests