Performance audits are great; great performance takes money

In one respect, the 2005 legislative session ended as it began: with the passage of performance audits. Long a priority of House Speaker Frank Chopp (who ushered performance-audit legislation through the House in January), he gained high-profile company when Gov. Christine Gregoire embraced the concept during her campaign and underscored a commitment to government accountability during her inauguration.

In the waning days of the session, the state Senate passed the bill and sent it to Gregoire's desk. When she signs the bill, our political leadership — and millions of taxpayers — can celebrate a real victory. In the aftermath, the people of Washington can hopefully be spared a redundant and unnecessary initiative from Tim Eyman aimed at the same topic.

It seems that the state's leading Democrats had such a good idea — extending audits to include not only finances but actual job performance — that Eyman felt the need to jump on the bandwagon. Why not? This one seems like a surefire winner, and following three consecutive years either not qualifying a statewide initiative or being soundly defeated at the polls, he needs a win to remain relevant.

He also wants to maintain the financial support of a new private donor who this year alone has dumped nearly $240,000 into Eyman's coffers — apparently failing to do his own performance audit on Eyman's dwindling tax rebellion.

Eyman's audit initiative, called I-900, is so unnecessary that even if it gets the needed signatures and passes in November, there will be no discernible impact.

In fact, about the only thing I-900 will do is create extra layers of bureaucracy — and with it extra cost for cash-strapped local governments around the state.

How ironic: a big government initiative from the man who makes a living railing against government.

It's logical and often beneficial for government entities to conduct performance audits. Many, such as King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, as well as the city of Seattle, already do.

While performance audits can help streamline performance, they are no panacea for the services lost (and therefore inconveniences gained) through lost revenue. The loss of service is especially noticeable at the local level, and especially in smaller counties harder hit by (Eyman's) initiatives 695 and 747.

Take libraries, for example. A loss of Sunday hours and across-the-board staff layoffs create two problems likely to show up in a performance audit: longer lines at the checkout counter and greater inconvenience for patrons.

Does this mean the library staff and administration aren't performing admirably or efficiently? Does a rural county road crew that lost 40 percent of its funding — and therefore isn't plowing the snow as much or replacing gravel on the roads — fail to perform its mission?

Or are they simply out of money, and doing the best they can?

It would be great if we include in performance audits a way to measure optimal performance, or how those services would be provided in a near-perfect world. In some cases, that may mean savings — like ending duplicate maintenance contracts or improving purchasing of equipment and supplies.

But in other circumstances, optimal performance may require additional revenue — to add service hours, hire staff, or purchase updated technology.

In other words, if the public trusted performance audits not only to suggest service cuts, but also service enhancements, we may finally end the damaging cycle of feel-good initiatives playing off public cynicism and resulting in deep cuts that only make people lose more faith in government service.

Across the state, public employees are working in partnership with local officials to educate the public on the critical need to improve local government funding, and restore the confidence needed to make it happen.

Performance audits are one way to help restore that confidence — an idea not lost upon Chopp, Gregoire and others who advocate for improved accountability and more-efficient spending.

Eyman, on the other hand, would put himself out of a job if he couldn't stir up distrust in government, so perhaps he has other motives.

Maybe by piling on and creating additional unfunded bureaucracy, he can complain about the swelling ranks of auditors performing redundant tasks and wasting tax dollars.

A problem he will attempt to solve, no doubt, through another initiative.

Chris Dugovich is president and executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 2, AFL-CIO, representing 16,000 local government employees throughout Washington state.