By Jason Mercier
Oh, what a difference a few words can make! And a few words are the difference
between a performance audit bill taxpayers could have applauded and the
one the House passed last week. It sets off warning bells of "here
we go again."
The bill the House approvedESHB
1064improves on proposals from recent years, but it unfortunately
doesn't include the most important ingredient: independence! The House version
does not authorize the state auditor to conduct independent performance
audits; instead it allows an unelected political board the power to determine
what type of audits will occur. This violates accounting standards for independent
performance audits. By changing just a few words in the bill, however, the
Senate could correct this problem and negate the need for the pending voter
initiative.
Why should we care? Consider the fact that performance audits in Texas
have saved taxpayers more than $9 billion since 1991 and Arizona expects
to save $900 million by fiscal year 2008all a result of performance
audits.
Furthermore, comprehensive performance audits are a wonderful tool legislators
can use to ensure the programs they support are delivering services in the
most efficient, effective and economical manner possible.
The ability to achieve significant budget savings, while at the same time
improving delivery of essential state services, is why we at the Evergreen
Freedom Foundation have waged a battle for truly independent and comprehensive
performance audits for more than ten years.
As currently approved by the House, an unelected board of political appointees
determines what types of performance audits are needed, what the scope of
those audits will be, and who will actually conduct them. If the Senate
changes these provisions and charges the elected state auditor with establishing
criteria for performance audits and conducting or contracting them (auditor's
discretion), the question of independence would be laid to rest.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office auditing
standards require auditors be independent both in fact and appearance
from personal, external, and organizational impairments to independence.
But the current version of performance audits gives an unelected citizen
board the ability to establish the parameters of any performance audits.
Essentially this means the elected state auditor must get approval from
the political appointees on the board for any performance audits. This is
organizational impairment; it is not independence.
In essence, this sets up a process similar to the one currently employed
by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC). JLARC is made
up of legislators and staff, and it already does targeted performance audits.
This type of legislative audit is valuable and has its place. But taxpayers
expect and deserve independent and comprehensive performance audits
that will look at all areas of state government.
If signed into law without changes, the bill makes the state auditor a
non-voting member of a ten-person citizen board and he or she would
be prohibited from serving as chair. In addition, the state auditor
would be forced to contract out all performance audits. Rather than
being relegated to the role of figurehead, the people's elected state auditor
should be authorized to direct and conduct all performance audits.
A draft amendment
crafted by the state auditor and Speaker Frank Chopp's office would have
addressed these concerns, but it was not considered on the House floor.
An amendment offered by Rep. Mike Armstrong, which included key provisions
from the state auditor's draft amendment, was considered, but failed in
a 47-49 vote.
Thankfully, the Senate can fix this problem. We hope they do, because the
proper place for this matter to be resolved is in the legislature. And the
proper officeholder to put in charge of performance audits is the independently
elected state auditor. But the political momentum is on the side of truly
independent and comprehensive performance audits, and should the legislature
miss this opportunity, a citizens' initiative waits in the wings.
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]?"