Editor’s note: This commentary is by Doug Hoffer, who is the Vermont state auditor.
A recent report from the Center for Public Integrity scored and ranked states for transparency and accountability — two issues that I am dedicated to as Vermont’s elected auditor. Upon reviewing the center’s findings, I was surprised that Vermont scored a C minus for “internal auditing.” While the center’s project is laudable, I am concerned that the ratings don’t fairly represent the facts. Since the devil is always in the details, I looked closely at the methodology and offer the following comments.
First, the Auditor’s Office received top scores for a number of measures. In some other cases, however, the methodology is flawed and the scoring is based on misinformation. Below are some examples. The criterion is followed by the score and my comments.
Criterion: In law, there is an independent audit institution, auditor general, or equivalent to cover the state’s entire public sector.
Score: Moderate
According to Public Integrity, Vermont received a less than perfect score because the statute that describes the State Auditor’s responsibilities does not explicitly say that it has the authority to audit the Legislature or the Judiciary.
32 V.S.A.§ 163(1) states that the State Auditor shall “Annually perform or contract for the audit of the basic financial statements of the State of Vermont and, at his or her discretion, conduct governmental audits … of every department, institution, and agency of the State …” (Emphasis added).
The explanatory text states that “No agency or body audits the judiciary.” This is demonstrably false. KPMG (under contract to the Auditor’s Office) routinely audits the Judiciary’s financial statements for the CAFR and occasionally audits the Judiciary as part of the federal Single Audit.
In addition, we are currently conducting an audit to assess the effectiveness of the state’s processes for collecting court-ordered payments from defendants for public defender services. At no time has the Judiciary challenged our authority to conduct the audit.
Finally, the statute that guarantees unlimited access to records for audit purposes does not exempt the Legislature, so in addition to the broad language in §163(1) it is reasonable to assume the auditor has the authority to audit the Legislature [32 V.S.A. §167(a)].
Criterion: In practice, the government acts on the findings of the audit agency.
Score: 75
Public Integrity’s interest in big data and machine-readability is fine, but is misguided when assessing the work of the Auditor’s Office.
The explanatory text stated that “At least in recent years, legislators and senior administration officials always react to reports by the auditor. But they do not always agree.”
No state auditor in America has the power to compel an administration or legislature to adopt recommendations. A more useful measure would be how often recommendations are adopted. We track that through a recommendation follow-up process and report the results in the annual performance report, which is posted on our website.
Criterion: In practice, the audit agency independently initiates investigations.
Score: 75
The center penalized the Auditor’s Office because “neither the law nor the constitution gives the Auditor any authority to engage in criminal investigation or prosecution.” The explanatory text acknowledges that “The Auditor’s office independently initiates those investigations that it chooses to pursue.” But the center’s representative was concerned that the Auditor’s Office did not initiate a criminal investigation into the deaths of two toddlers released from DCF custody back to their families.
To my knowledge, state auditors are never authorized to “engage in criminal investigation or prosecution.” That’s the job of the Attorney General. Therefore, why should the office be penalized for not doing someone else’s job?
The issue is whether I actually initiate investigations independently. As noted above, the statute is clear that I have that authority, and I do so routinely.
Criterion: In practice, audit reports are made available in open data format.
Score: 25
When asked about this score, the center stated that “All the open data questions are scored a 25 – as in the case of Vermont – if and when data is available but not in a format which makes it easy for citizens and journalists to parse data and then work with the data by comparing it, rearranging it, such as .xml or .csv format. PDF format results in a 25.”
First, the Auditor’s Office is not the custodian of the kinds of data files referenced. In Vermont, it is the Department of Finance & Management that keeps files related to state expenditures. Other than the audit reports, the only records we have are work papers, which support the audit work, but are typically not data files.
Audit reports draw from data hosted by other departments and agencies, but they are not themselves big data. You can’t save an audit report as an Excel file or in .csv format. The reports are mostly words and, as such, cannot be rearranged or compared with data files. Public Integrity’s interest in big data and machine-readability is fine, but is misguided when assessing the work of the Auditor’s Office.
Conclusion: I welcome independent reviews of the work of the Auditor’s Office. But such efforts should be based on a thorough understanding of our office’s work, and they should help citizens better understand the role of the office, including its limitations. Unfortunately, the center made a few odd choices in the measures used for internal auditing. As a result, they have misrepresented the office and the scores do not accurately reflect our efforts to enhance the transparency and accountability of Vermont’s government.
