Senate fails to adopt independent performance
audits by one vote
Approves restrictive House bill
OLYMPIAThe Senate fell one vote short today of adopting
truly independent and comprehensive performance audits. Instead the Senate
approved ESHB 1064, which creates an unelected political board to establish
the criteria of any performance audits instituted. The bill passed by a
vote of 30-19.
Amendments offered by Sen. Pam Roach (R) and Sen. Bill Finkbeiner (R) would
have allowed the state auditor to establish the scope of performance audits
and conduct them without having to gain permission from an unelected political
board. Both amendments failed by votes of 24-25. The language in the defeated
amendments closely resembled the draft
bill the state auditor's office (SAO) and House Speaker Frank Chopp
(D-Seattle) worked on earlier this year, which was never brought to the
House floor for consideration.
"Based on the signers of EFF's performance audit pledge, we thought
the legislature would finally allow the people to benefit from truly independent
comprehensive performance audits," said Jason Mercier, budget analyst
for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "But that would have required
all who signed the pledge to honor their word."
"With today's vote, Initiative 900 is the last proposal standing that
allows the state auditor to do the job we hired him to do without having
to jump through political hoops," said Mercier.
Last year, seventy legislators signed a performance audit pledge sponsored
by the EFF, which read in-part: "I pledge to support independent
comprehensive performance audits of state agencies. The scope of
performance audits should be established by the elected state auditor, not
an unelected group of citizens appointed by the governor and legislature."
Among the EFF pledge signers were Sen. Jim Kastama (D) and Sen. Marilyn
Rasmussen (D)both of whom voted against the failed amendments.
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]?"