By Shawn Newman
& Jason Mercier
When it comes to fighting government fraud, Washington state lacks a key
weapon: a state False Claims law. The federal government, thirteen states
and many local jurisdictions (including Washington, D.C. and San Francisco)
have adopted False Claims laws. These measures allow anyone with unique
knowledge and evidence of fraud against government to act as a "private
attorney general" and sue the wrongdoer on behalf of the government.
These citizen fraud fighters, however, are first required to petition the
government attorneys to take action before filing suit. If that government
doesn't take action, the citizen then is empowered to act on the government's
behalf.
One major incentive for such citizen involvement is the fact that federal
law provides for a share of the damages for the citizen fraud fighter, payment
of attorney's fees and protection from retaliation. A Washington State False
Claims Act should include similar provisions.
Despite past legislative efforts and support from State Auditor Brian Sonntag,
Washington state does not have a False Claims Act. Considering revelations
from recent investigations by the State Auditor's Office, taxpayers should
be asking their legislators why:
The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) obstructed
the state auditor's review of Washington's $6.1 billion annual Medicaid
budget causing the auditor to "disclaim" the entire audit. This
means the auditor cannot verify what DSHS is doing with the $6.1 billion
in Medicaid funding.
The State Liquor Control Board could not account for $421 million
in sales and paid nearly $1 million to a vendor who submitted false billing
records.
The Department of Transportation mismanaged nearly $30 million
in reimbursements to the developer of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project.
Costs were not adequately verified or reviewed to ensure they met contract
terms.
The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) could not account
for $5.8 million in employer workers' compensation premiums that did not
get deposited in state accounts.
L&I failed to report $261,000 in lost equipment as required
by law, including laptop computers and digital cameras.
The lack of a state False Claims law to fight for government accountability
enables abuses like these to go unpunished.
There is also troubling news out of the Office of Financial Management
(OFM). According to OFM, Washington is having a hard time finding affordable
fraud insurance. OFM blames the state's numerous and troubling audit findings
for causing a doubling of the state's Employee Dishonesty Blanket Bond insurance
premium and a 400 percent increase in the deductible for fiscal year 2004-05.
In a letter sent to state agencies, OFM
wrote, ". . . because of the state's claims history and the number
of audit findings relating to inadequate internal controls, it was not easy
to find carriers willing to provide coverage. We were able to obtain coverage
but at a cost. Premium has doubled and the deductible has increased from
$100,000 to $500,000."
As evident from the numerous repeat audit findings over the past few years
against various state agencies, there does not appear to be enough incentive
currently for the legislature or agencies to address fraud. Perhaps citizen
fraud fighters with the ability to collect a bounty for evidence of wrongdoing
will help encourage state officials to exercise better accountability over
state programs.
While it is nice to have faith that those who contract with or claim government
benefits will be honest, the reality, as Ben Franklin noted long ago, is
"There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more
easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government."
A state False Claims Act will help promote government accountability by
empowering and rewarding citizens to blow the whistle on government fraud
and abuse.
Shawn Newman is an Olympia-based attorney who frequently pursues government
accountability cases. Jason Mercier is a budget 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.
Contact: 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]?"