Performance audits have become a hot topic in Olympia with multiple proposals
on the table to authorize these much needed performance reviews. As of this
writing, three bills have been dropped in the legislature (including one
companion bill) and an initiative to the people has been filed to permit
the state auditor the ability to conduct performance audits.
The value of performance audits is unquestionable. 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.
Below is a brief comparison of the current legislative proposals to authorize
performance audits.
SB
5083: Authorizing comprehensive state government performance audits
This bill is modeled after the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's performance
audit pledge
supported and signed by 70 legislators (including House Speaker Frank Chopp)
as well as State Auditor Brian Sonntag. SB 5083 would amend the Budget and
Accounting Act to remove the current prohibition on the state auditor conducting
performance audits of state government.
SB 5083 specifies that the scope of any performance audits initiated by
the state auditor cannot be restricted or vetoed by an outside entity. The
state auditor would also be free to analyze the economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness of state government activities, as long as the audits follow
United States Government Accountability Office standards. Funding for these audits
is required to be equal to two one-hundredths of one percent of the state's
total general fund state budget for each biennium; approximately $5 million
for the 2005-07 budget.
The following legislators
signed the performance audit pledge reflected in SB 5083's language.
Citizens demand and deserve accountability of public programs. Public
programs must continuously improve in quality, efficiency, and effectiveness
in order to increase public trust; Washington state government and other
entities that receive tax dollars must continuously improve the way they
operate and deliver services so citizens receive maximum value for their
tax dollars; . . . Fair, independent, professional performance audits
of state agencies by the state auditor are essential to improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of government.
However, HB 1064 and SB 5124 create a "citizen oversight board"
to serve as a gatekeeper for the type of performance audits the state auditor
is authorized to do. Consider the following sections of the bills:
Sec. 3
(2) The board shall consist of seven members as follows:
(a) One member shall be the state auditor, who shall be a nonvoting
member
(3) The board shall elect a chair. Neither the chair of the joint legislative
audit and review committee nor the state auditor may serve as chair.
Sec. 4
2) The board and the state auditor shall work together regarding
performance audits of state government.
(a) The board shall establish criteria for performance audits.
(d) Before adopting the final work plan, the board shall consult
with the legislative auditor and other appropriate oversight and audit
entities to coordinate work plans and avoid duplication of effort in their
planned performance audits of state government agencies. The board
shall defer to the joint legislative audit and review committee
work plan if a similar audit is included on both work plans for auditing.
The final work plan must be agreed upon by the board and the
state auditor.
Sec. 7
The citizen oversight board created in section 3 of this act and its powers
and duties shall be terminated June 30, 2012...
Sec. 13
If specific funding for the purposes of this act, referencing this act
by bill or chapter number, is not provided by June 30, 2005, in the omnibus
appropriations act, this act is null and void.
An independently elected state auditor does not need a citizen
oversight board to tell him or her what a performance audit may or may not
review and what the audit plan/scope should be. This type of political review
mechanism duplicates the legislative audit procedure already available with
the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) audits. The sunset
of the performance audit authority and the lack of specified appropriations
possibly leading to the bills becoming null and void is also
troubling.
Conclusion
Taxpayers expect government to operate efficiently, economically and effectively.
Independent, comprehensive performance audits of state government, by the
people's elected state auditor, using nationally recognized standards, is
the best way to assure accountable and transparent government. Of the currently
proposed performance audit bills, only SB 5083 grants the state auditor
the ability to conduct unrestricted performance audits of state government.
Should the legislature ultimately adopt a bill which continues to inhibit
the state auditor, a voter initiative may be necessary to achieve truly
independent and comprehensive performance audits.
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]?"