Washington State Legislature Threatens to Hamstring State Auditor
Check out this article on the Washington Policy Center Blog. Apparently, the Washington State Legislature wants the State Auditor to reimburse School Districts and Educational Service Districts for the costs they incur in providing information to performance auditors.
Never mind that the information the auditors request should be readily available. If the entities that they audit need to take an enormous amount of time, or expend great effort, to provide information, that, in and of itself, should be a red flag to the citizens that maybe those entities don't take the time necessary to monitor themselves appropriately.
Everyone that voted for I-900 needs to contact their legislators to make them aware that the citizens want the money dedicated for performance audits spent on those audits, not to reimburse poorly organized and inefficient bureaucracies!
Posted by Jojobber at March 02, 2008 09:08 PM | Email ThisThe expectation during any audit is that the information requested by auditors is already available or available within a short period of time. More so with the audit of public entities who know that year after year the state auditor is going to come in to audit them. The "information" requested is all public records - it should be readily available. Saying there won't be any costs to reimburse if the information is readily available is just flat wrong - the public entities will always claim that it takes oh so long to "produce" the requested information. Therein lies one problem - these entities are not supposed to be "producing" any information when the auditor comes calling. They are supposed to "provide" it. It should already exist - it should not have to be conjured up or "produced."
They do not have to take money away from classrooms to respond to auditor requests. Part of any public employees duties is to assist during any audits. ITS ALREADY PART OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION!!!
Additionally, these are not "fishing expeditions." The performance audits being conducted are a result of taxpayer/citizen input. It sounds like you have a problem with the Auditors office as a whole (maybe you work for a school district?). If that is so, then start an initiative to change the state constitution, for that is the underlying authority for the existence of the office in the first place.
So what do you mean by "what is Sonntag afraid of?" Do you sense some sort of conspiracy?? It is common public knowledge that all (repeat, all) local governmental agencies pay the state auditor to conduct the required annual audits (or bi-annual depending on the entity). These monies are built in to their budgets. Some of those entities pay exorbitant amounts of money to private CPA firms that can charge up to $400/hr to do some of the annual audits, instead of saving money by letting the auditor's office do all the audit work (e.g., Port of Seattle, Sound Transit) for a maximum of $70.00 an hour. The state auditor allows this to occur for some unknown reason. But what may occur, and maybe what he is "afraid" of, is that other governments may try to pull this bull-crap when it comes to their turn to receive a performance audit. Now that we know what's been happening at the Port of Seattle do you think that the taxpaying public would like it if the Port submitted a bill to the state auditor for the time it took them to obfuscate, delay, and hinder the work of the performance auditors? Why should the governmental entities known as school districts or educational service districts be any different? And, please, don't tell me "its for the kids."
The costs of those audits are already borne by the Performance Audit Account. What account do you think pays for the cost of the state audit staff assigned to the performance audits, and the costs of the contractors hired to conduct the performance audits?
If the real goal is not government efficiency, as you imply, then what is the real goal? Moreover, if these districts would not spend so much damn money on sending their teachers and principals to far off lands for "cultural learning experiences" (which are really district-financed vacations), then they could re-route that money into making sure that their financial houses are in order, and that their employees actually follow rules instead of breaking them all the time. Ask your local school district the amount they spent on travel last year. I asked mine, and they told me over $900,000. Gee, where can they save money???
The state auditor doesn't audit small businesses. They only audit state and local governments, and they do it on a consistent, regular basis. The Department of Revenue (among other state agencies) audits small businesses on a random basis.
Posted by: Michael H on March 6, 2008 07:53 PMSo your school district spent $900,000 on travel, and you assume it would be a good place to "save money." Perhaps, Michael, the debate team attended a few regional tournaments? Perhaps, Michael, the orchestra went somewhere to play a concert? Perhaps, Michael, your daughter's third-grade class went to the Science Museum? Perhaps some teachers attended some training to implement the new assessment tools mandated by the Legislature? Please tell us, Michael, precisely which trips you would eliminate to "save money." Go ahead. Do it.
And if Mr. Sonntag doesn't want to reimburse school districts for audit costs, perhaps we need to get to the bottom of this mystery by doing a performance audit of the Auditor's Office.
Go ahead, Michael. Just do it. Because you are smarter than those folks we elected to the school board.