More about putting the personal aside and control

I earlier noted in a post that sometimes auditors can add facts and reason to a politically charged environment. But this week in the news is a story about an elected auditor whose authority to audit is challenged by another elected official, the City Attorney. The Los Angeles City Controller was scheduled to begin a performance audit of the worker’s compensation program which is in the office of the City Attorney. The City Attorney has gone to court to block the audit. When I was at Multnomah County, my office audited the Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, both led by elected officials. There was never any resistance to the audits or questioning of the office's authority to audit a department led by an elected official. In fact, when you think about it, almost every audit ultimately lands at the feet of an elected official. But the City Attorney is claiming that the City Controller is politically motivated. She is term-limited and may be seeking office as a City Councilor. The City Attorney is claiming that the Controller is not independent and that the City Charter only allows her office to do financial not performance audits.

At Metro, the Charter is pretty clear. “The functions of the Auditor include financial as well as performance audits of all departments, offices, commissions, activities and operations of Metro and reports regarding compliance with adopted laws, policies and sound fiscal practices.” Also, the Metro Auditor for four years after the last term is ineligible to hold the office of Metro Councilor.

Funny thing, here are similar charges of a politically motivated audit from Pakistan.