Performance audits are rarely seen in the public sector, so few elected
officials and their staff really know what they are. Performance audits
are a valuable management tool, carefully structured around tough, nationally
recognized auditing principlesprinciples that cannot be ignored if
the best intentions of legislators and the desires of the public are to
be realized. Here are the non-negotiables, as defined by the U.S.
General Accounting Office Auditing Standards (a.k.a. Yellow Book):
Independence. Auditors must be independent, both in fact
and appearance from personal, external, and organizational impairments
to independence.
Sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence must be obtained.
Self assessments do not count.
Efficiency, economy and effectiveness (program audits)are the three standards that define performance audits. They are a
three-legged stool.
Comprehensive written reports must be communicated to designated
authorities in a timely fashion.
All performance audits should follow generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Most proposals tagged as performance audits squeeze around some or all
of these standards, meaning the best intentions of well-meaning lawmakers
will not be realized in the end. No proposal will be perfect, but
it must at the very least be a clear step forward.
Performance audits should be welcomed, not feared. They are invaluable
management tools to determine what is working as intended and what is not.
Furthermore, they almost always result in significant savings. Lawmakers
and the Executive Branch in Texas have worked in a bipartisan manner to
use performance audits to save more than $9 billion in ten years.
It is always tempting to appoint a citizen board. But there is inherent
danger in telling an independently elected state official
that he or she may not do their job without advance approval from an unelected
group of citizensa group appointed by the very people and agencies
to be audited.
Washington taxpayers have made it clear they want true accountability in
government. When we have a chance to get it right, why not go for it?
Prepared by Bob Williams, President
and Senior 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]?"