State auditor denied access to state records Some agencies even attempt to charge auditor for copies of records
In a troubling blow to open government, the elected state auditor is being
denied access to records necessary to hold Washington state government accountable
to the people. While the difficulty with which some agencies have in providing
access to public records is well
documented (please see EFF
PH 14-14), perhaps even more disturbing to the cause of open and accountable
government is the opposition the state auditor's office (SAO) is encountering
in its efforts to audit and review the conduct of state government.
This fact is illustrated by the following comments from SAO's 2003
Statewide Accountability Report under the caption "Current
Audit Challenges":
In some cases, agencies have resisted our requests for access to
data. Sometimes this has occurred through delays in providing the
information; other times, we have been required to go through lengthy
request processes, including the signing of detailed confidentiality agreements.
Some agencies have attempted to require us to pay for the information.
Generally agencies have used confidentiality issues related to clients'
personal information or the cost of providing the information as reasons
for denying or delaying our records requests. However, our employees
are required to maintain confidentiality regarding all audit procedures
and results during the course of an audit and are aware of the on-going
need for confidentiality regarding personal data, in accordance with
the Governor's
Executive Order 00-03, Public Records Privacy Protections.
In addition, charging us for information would be counter-productive
because the charges would be added on to the audit bill. No private entity
engaging a firm to audit the entity's records would charge the auditor
to obtain those records.
This unacceptable behavior by some state agencies is occurring despite
the explicitly clear intent of Governor Gary Locke's 00-03 executive order
on public records privacy:
I am a strong believer in open government and the people's right to
know. The very existence of our democracy depends on the fundamental principles
embodied in our laws ensuring that we never have secret government. People
must be able to trust their government . . . With this executive order,
it is my intent to ensure that state agencies comply fully with state
public disclosure and open government laws, while protecting personal
information to the maximum extent possible . . . Nothing in this executive
order shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise impair a lawful investigation
or protective activity undertaken by or on behalf of the state.
The occurrence of agencies denying the state auditor records and threatening
to charge for access to state documents leads to a curious question of whether
or not Washingtonians and legislators really want SAO to incur additional
public expenditures to gain access to records needed for audit purposes.
The answer for most legislators and taxpayers is an unequivocal NO.
Currently, RCW
43.09.165 grants SAO the ability to subpoena documents and testimony
needed to conduct audits of state government and provide for open and accountable
government. However, Washington's elected state auditor should not be forced
to subpoena state agencies and officials to obtain cooperation with required
audit investigations.
Rather than force the state auditor to obtain court orders and spend additional
tax dollars to receive copies of records necessary to conduct an audit,
the legislature should amend RCW 43.09.165 to make it explicitly clear that
state agencies must fully and unconditionally cooperate with any
state initiated audit. Such audit compliance should be extended to any future
performance audits conducted as well as the standard fiscal and compliance
audits currently authorized.
The spectacle of a state agency denying the people's elected state auditor
access to the documents needed to hold government accountable should never
be tolerated.
Prepared by: 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]?"