Contact: Jason Mercier, Budget Research Analyst
(360) 956-3482
Where's the accountability?
By Jason Mercier The words "government" and "accountability"
are seldom synonymous in the minds of taxpayers these daysand for
good reason. Every day we are painfully reminded of the disconnect between
common sense and state government.
Consider just a few examples:
Felons are receiving welfare checks while DSHS sits by the phone
waiting to see if the police will notice, instead of turning the fugitives
in.
Billing fraud and witness tampering at the University of Washington
earned one doctor a multi-million dollar severance package.
A DSHS department is planning a $100,000 staff retreat to a ski
lodge for its employees, complete with a world-class comedian for entertainment.
The Department of Labor and Industries is openly sending workers'
comp benefits to illegal aliens in violation of state and federal law.
Professors at Evergreen State College can take up to 210 paid
sick days each year.
Examples like these prompt taxpayers to demand accountability, as they
should. But while many state officials are beginning to hear those demands,
they don't seem to know what true accountability means.
We're happy to help define it.
True accountability means being responsible for your actions. In state
government, this also means being responsible for the programs under your
control. For individuals who violate the law or commit fraud, it means tangible
consequences exist and are enforced. It means state programs and budgets
have clear goals and measurable outcomes. And it means allowing comprehensive
and independent performance audits based on those goals.
A good audit doesn't just follow a money trail and make a de facto report,
it evaluates the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of a program so service
can be improved. And it triggers immediate consequences for any wrongdoing
or mismanagement uncovered.
But accountability isn't all about negative reinforcement. It also acknowledges
and rewards good performance. It recognizes and promotes effective governing
even as it exposes and resolves ineffective governing.
Taxpayers are not opposed to taxes. We all understand that we have to pay
for the services we want. But we are opposed to excessive taxes and we have
every right to expect that the folks we hire to manage our money and services
will do their job well.
It is now apparent to everyone, even state officials, that too many in
government are not doing their jobs well. The resounding failure of Referendum
51 was a loud reminder that Washington citizens no longer trust state government.
Fortunately for elected officials, it's possible for them to regain the
trust of voters if they take serious and meaningful action to restore accountability
and transparency.
We don't need more bean-counting or reports, we need state officials who
are willing to identify clear goals, encourage comprehensive performance
audits, and take action to ensure those goals are being met and waste, fraud
and mismanagement are being eliminated.
By way of encouragement to state officials, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation
has launched a new Waste Watchers website.
The site chronicles a long list of waste and mismanagement in state government
and offers "hot diet tips" and action items for concerned citizens.
Each story on the site will be updated as EFF gets information about its
status, and citizens are encouraged to "get active" on unresolved
items by calling their representatives or the officials directly involved.
Information about who to contact will be posted.
Once state officials realize that wrongdoing, poor performance, and consequences
go together, we may be able to use the words "accountable" and
"government" in the same breath. Until then, the state's actions
(or lack of action) speak louder than any self-proclaimed assurances of
accountability.
Jason Mercier is a budget research analyst for the Evergreen Freedom
Foundation, a non-profit public policy research organization based in Olympia.
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]?"