The bogus performance audit bill the dems slammed into place to front for those agencies was just another example of their efforts to weasel out of what should be their first responsibility: making sure each and every dollar they steal from us is properly spent followed by holding those accountable who misspend or rip off our money accountable.
This democrat-controlled legislature did neither, of course. They passed out a bill in response to Eyman’s threat to ram yet another initiative down their throats that gives lip-service to performance audits while still tying Brian Sonntag’s hands.
Of course, I have some level of ambivalence on this issue… Brian has been blowing the clarion call of government mishandling; misspending and vaporizing billions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars for years… and what did this democrat-controlled legislature do about it?
Nothing.
The Longview Daily News nails it here with their editorial demanding the legislature revisit the issue and get rid of their bogus, left leaning “We’ll let you off the hook advisory committee,” while turning Brian Sonntag loose to work his magic on the state government’s books.
The next question, tho, is this: even when Brian nails these guys by the schvantz… what will the tax and spend, “balance the budget on the backs of the poor and powerless” legislature do about it?
Sadly, I fear we already know the answer to that question.
Advisory board is political obstacle to meaningful performance audits
Jun 04, 2005 - 08:39:30 pm PDT
The Olympia-based Evergreen Freedom Foundation has prodded the Washington Legislature to allow independent performance audits of state agencies for more than a decade. The conservative public policy organization's persistence appeared to have paid off this past session, when lawmakers approved legislation calling for the performance reviews. But the law turns out to be less than an ironclad promise of these audits.
EFF budget research analyst Jason Mercier points out in a recent op-ed piece that law does not give the state auditor the authority to establish criteria for the audits. It instead establishes a 10-member advisory board to perform that critical function.
Seven of the members are selected by the legislative caucuses and the governor. Moreover, the auditor, the single advisory board member who is an elected official, cannot vote or serve as chairman of the board. Putting political appointees in charge of this process pretty much defeats the purpose of the performance audit law, which is to allow a hard-nosed review of the spending choices of politicians.
This is a critical flaw. It ought to be corrected at the start of the next legislative session. The so-called advisory board is an unnecessary political obstacle to meaningful performance audits. The elected state auditor should have the authority to establish the criteria for performance reviews. As Mercier writes, "The federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) has established recognized standards for government audits. These standards require that auditors be free of organizational impairment to independence."
This political resistance to independent performance audits comes as no surprise. Comprehensive performance audits make elected officials accountable for their choices. But limiting the scope of these reviews is wrong-headed. Performance audits can save money and strengthen public confidence in state government.
A recent performance audit in California identified some $32 billion in potential savings that could be assumed over a five-year period, according to the EFF. In Texas, performance reviews have produced $16 billion in potential savings since being authorized in 1991.
There is no down side to these audits, other than the political problems they might create for big-spending legislators. Washington needs the savings performance audits can deliver. State government can benefit from the added accountability they would bring to the appropriations process.
The Legislature should revisit this law next year and eliminate the advisory board. The state auditor, alone, can decide how and when to conduct these reviews.
No comments:
Post a Comment