Print
Email
Gov. Chris Gregoire has until May 18 to either gut or save State Auditor Brian Sonntag's popular (though not with the Legislature) and effective performance audits of public and quasi-public agencies. The audits flow from the passage of statewide Initiative 900, a broadly popular measure pushed by Tim Eyman.
The recently adjourned Legislature defied the spirit and letter of the initiative and cut the performance-audit budget by 73 percent — effectively crippling the program. Gregoire previously had agreed with Sonntag on a 20 percent budget cut of normal state audits but not of the performance audits. She now must veto or approve the Legislature's action. If she vetoes it, the 73 percent cut would be restored.
What legislators were behind the cuts and why? Since the budget was completed by a only a handful of legislators, with others in the dark, the trail seems clear to only a few players, all Sonntag's fellow Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (Spokane), who has gubernatorial ambitions, and state Sen. Rodney Tom (Eastside) apparently were the audits' principal killers in the Senate. State Rep. Kelly Linville (Bellingham), a lead budget player in the House,also shared responsibility.
Others have shown their hands in interviews and communications. Reps. Sam Hunt and Brendan Williams (Olympia) implied to an editorial-board meeting of the Daily Olympian that Sonntag, long ago (1996) mentioned as a possible Democratic gubernatorial candidate, was using the audits to promote himself. State Reps. Ross Hunter (Medina) and Deborah Eddy (Eastside) also took swipes at Sonntag in responses to a constituent e-mail. Hunter, who wants to be King County Executive, characterized Sonntag's performance audits of school districts as "stupid." Eddy was critical of Sonntag's audit of the state Department of Transportation.
Personal opinion: The Legislature's proposed gutting of the performance-audit program is inexcusable. The audits, thus far, have saved taxpayers millions more dollars than they have cost. Among other things, they have uncovered practices by WSDOT, the Port of Seattle, Sound Transit, and other agencies which required correction. Without the audits, they would not have been exposed.
One suspects nothing more than raw politics was involved in Brown's and Hunter's swipes at Sonntag and the audits. Both want to move up the political ladder. Both would derive political support and money from groups resisting Sonntag's oversight. That's small-bore behavior by elected officials who would like us to see them as can-do leaders qualifed for larger responsibility.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, May 11, 7:48 a.m. Inappropriate
Sunday's Olympian also sides with Sonntag:
Give the money back to audit program, THE OLYMPIAN EDITORIAL BOARD, Sunday, May 10, 2009 http://www.theolympian.com/editorials/story/846363.html
Also, the Seattle Times & Everett Herald editorial boards and others agree:
SEATTLE TIMES: Save Sonntag's audits -- In a time of tight budgets — and this will not be the last one — the auditor's work is needed more than ever.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009192757_editb08auditor.html
EVERETT HERALD: Use veto to restore funding -- The size of the cut carries an acrid air of vindictiveness ...
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090508/OPINION01/705089915
SEATTLE WEEKLY: Auditor's Cuts: Your Vote Revoked --
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/05/auditors_cuts_your_vote_revoke.php
KITSAP PENINSULA BUSINESS JOURNAL: This is hardball dirty politics — not to mention downright fiscal stupidity — at work. The legislature should not be allowed to get away with this assault on financial accountability.
http://kpbj.com/opinioneditorial/articles/2009-05-02-EDT-01.html
Posted Mon, May 11, 7:57 a.m. Inappropriate
These audits need to have mandatory responses as to why the cost saving suggestions cannot or should not be implemented. Most of the departments run for cover and never adopt the bulk of the cost saving measures suggested.
Posted Mon, May 11, 8:27 a.m. Inappropriate
From section 2 of I-900:
To the greatest extent possible, the state auditor shall instruct and advise the appropriate governmental body on a step-by-step remedy to whatever ineffectiveness and inefficiency is discovered in the audited entity. For performance audits of state government and its agencies, programs, and accounts, the legislature must consider the state auditor reports in connection with the legislative appropriations process. An annual report will be submitted by the joint legislative audit and review committee by July 1st of each year detailing the status of the legislative implementation of the state auditor's recommendations. Justification must be provided for recommendations not implemented. Details of other corrective action must be provided as well.
Posted Mon, May 11, 8:31 a.m. Inappropriate
So Sonntag is using the audits to promote himself, huh? What a shame that a competent, civic-minded, hard working political leader should come to the attention of the voters! That's just not how things are done in this state! He must be stopped before he overshadows all the power-hungry mediocrities in the Legislature!
Now more than ever, when the state is pleading poverty, an aggressive series of performance audits should be the highest priority. To hell with just the governorship. I nominate Brian Sonntag for Enlightened Despot.
Posted Mon, May 11, 9:15 a.m. Inappropriate
I note that Tim Eyman has logged on twice on this issue. He was the initial sponsor of I-900. I usually oppose his proposals but this one was clearly in the public interest and was approved by voters overwhelmingly.
Some legislators would like to blur debate by dismissing the performance audits as "another Eyman proposal." Fact is, though, that the audits have saved taxpayers big money and have helped to keep public and quasi-public agencies honest (although, as Cameron noted, they have tried to slough off the audits' findings). Performance audits are not simply a Washington-state phenomenon. They have saved billions in several states where they
exist. They provide badly needed accountability where it has been lacking.
Gov. Gregoire, unlike President Obama and some other governors, enjoys the luxury of a line-item veto---that is, she can veto individual budget items without killing the entire budget. This is a place where she can exert leadership, and side with taxpayers and voters, and send an unmistakeable message to legislators who are siding with interest groups opposing the audits.
Posted Mon, May 11, 9:32 a.m. Inappropriate
the gov plans to sign the budget on the 19th. what's not clear to me is how her veto pen fixes the Legislature's action. unless it's spelled out as a mandated cut, a veto can't create an appropriation.
Posted Mon, May 11, 10:16 a.m. Inappropriate
Ted, you seem surprised. I'm not. The Dems in Washington State want transparency and accountability as much as Obama and the Dems in Washington, D.C. In otherwords, it's all talk.
Dems say (and do) anything to gain power since their own political careers are always the most important thing to them. They don't serve the people. The people exist to serve them.
There is no "change" and no "hope" for this state or this country with Dems in charge. Too bad people are so easily duped and swayed by snake-oil-salesmen.
Posted Mon, May 11, 10:19 a.m. Inappropriate
How many Crosscut readers are going to be calling and emailing Gov. Gregoire to demand the funds for these performance audits are not cut?
If you care about how this state spends your money, I hope everyone does so immediately.
Posted Mon, May 11, 10:51 a.m. Inappropriate
As Lainie says, contacting Gregoire is critical.
Send an email to Gregoire and tell her to uphold the voters' mandate on performance audits by veto'ing that section of the budget.
Type out 2 or 3 sentences IN YOUR OWN WORDS asking her to veto that section of the budget, to abide by I-900, and to save the auditor's authority and funding to do performance audits.
Just copy and paste these email addresses into your 'To...' line of your email: Cindy.Zehnder@GOV.WA.GOV; Joyce.Turner@GOV.WA.GOV; Pearse.Edwards@GOV.WA.GOV; Robin.Arnold-Williams@GOV.WA.GOV; Victor.Moore@OFM.WA.GOV; Marty.Brown@GOV.WA.GOV; Ron.Judd@GOV.WA.GOV; sonntagb@sao.wa.gov; govcommoffice@gov.wa.gov; tim_eyman@comcast.net
In section 2 of I-900, it reads: No legislative body, officeholder, or employee may impede or restrict the authority or the actions of the state auditor to conduct independent, comprehensive performance audits.
How can the Democrat Legislature's defunding and disemboweling of I-900 not be a clear violation of this mandate?
In section 5 of I-900, it reads: Money in the account shall be used to fund the performance audits and follow-up performance audits under section 2 of this act and shall be expended by the state auditor in accordance with this act. Only the state auditor or the state auditor's designee may authorize expenditures from the account.
How can the Democrat Legislature's raid of I-900's dedicated funding be anything but a clear violation of this voter-approved law?
Posted Mon, May 11, 11:40 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm going to double-check on this, to make sure I got good information ... but my understanding was that the auditor had every dime he needs for audits over the next biennium.
I-900 was an initiative that actually came with funding to pay for it (there's a good idea!), 0.16 percent of the state's sales tax revenue. That would be maybe $20 million for the current biennium? The judgment call for the legislature's budget writers was whether the entire amount raised would be necessary, needed by the auditor over the next two years, at a time that we were cutting other essential services.
Certainly, reasonable people can disagree on whether it was a good idea to re-allocate some of these funds, but the legislature does have the authority to amend intiatives after a certain period of time.
BTW, my criticism has not been of audits, generally, but of some audits and some sections of audits, specifically. Paying someone to look over the state transportation budget, for instance, and to come to the conclusion that we could save money (gasp!) by cutting certain ferry routes (you don't say?) -- well, that does NOT seem like a good use of taxpayer money, whether allocated by initiative or otherwise. Cutting services always saves money.
I was not particularly impressed by the quality of portions of the WSDOT audits, my criticisms have been focused on those audits and I stand by that opinion.
Deb Eddy
Posted Mon, May 11, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate
If these audits were "proven" to save millions, then where are the savings? What specific recommendations could be implemented that have not been that could save the state the $500 million Sonntag claims? Fact is they do not exist. To date, it appears Sonntag has completed 15 audits at a cost of $16 million. Over three years' time that is quite underwhelming. Even more underwhelming are the quality of the audits. The recommendations are largely impractical or cost money. Am I missing something?
Posted Mon, May 11, 3:37 p.m. Inappropriate
I do not know of all the audits, but the audit of the Port of Seattle appears to have found some major issues and definitely has spurred a lot of work by the Port that does have the potential to save taxpayers money. I would not be surprised one bit if the Port lobbyists were among the voices asking certain legislators to cut the funding of the audits.
I just sent an email off to the list posted above. I made the point that knee-capping the ability of the audit team to do their job will be a lot easier with the big budget cut because bureaucrats who have a lot to hide, like those at the Port of Seattle who got exposed by the first round of audits, will just be able to stall, delay, obfuscate and run out the budget of the audit team.
Posted Mon, May 11, 10:07 p.m. Inappropriate
The State Auditor's office audited the ferries. Their suggestions for cutting ferry runs were simply not practical---cut runs that were, in effect, in the middle of the day or at other times that did not effectively reduce payroll costs. In other words, the improved performance would have had people and equipment 'sitting around' while ostensibly saving money--at most, some fuel costs. It was a bit like what Jack Kennedy told Robert McNamara when McNamara suggested closing the Brooklyn Navy Yard to save a few bucks for the Pentagon: "If you close the Yard, the workers go across the street and collect unemployment. With the Yard open, we at least get a ship out of the deal."
On Bainbridge Island, we asked Sonntag's office to audit the school district because they were using funds voters approved to 'fix and repair playfields throughout the District' to rebuild a football stadium and install artificial turf at Bainbridge High School. His response was a legalistic "they can do whatever they want." The audit wasn't worth the stamp used to send it to us, and the notion that the office exists to, and will keep, folks in government honest is wishful thinking on Tim's part.
Just because they say its an audit doesn't mean its an audit. I too supported this Initiative, but the legislature is right in saying, "the performance isn't there. So save a few bucks, and cut the budget." Wise words, and we've heard them from Tim, himself.