Short-term engagement

What would I do auditing in an environment that didn't value equity and human rights. Guess I wouldn't last long.

Bus audit creates discussion about purpose

Here is an interesting news article about an audit of the transit system in Houston. A state audit has caused a debate about what the purpose of the transit system is. Is it efficiency? One metric considered was the operating ratio or the percent of the cost that is paid for by the fare. Increasing this metric requires reducing or eliminating routes that serve lower numbers of people. But then this raises the issue of equity or whether the transit authority's purpose is serving the low income, those who have no other means of transportation. Quality can be measured in another way - the comfort of the trip. Some think that using that performance measure light rail transportation is better than bus routes - because light rail is quieter, more comfortable, and more reliable.

A very interesting discussion and illustrates the value of an audit. Audits can improve the quality of the public discussion. This article reminds me of the debate that is taking place in my own jurisdiction, but without the benefit of an audit to clarify issues. See here, here, and here.

Oregon doing a good job; citizen's paying their share of federal taxes more accurately

According to a recent GAO audit Oregon is a potential model in the area of regulating tax preparers. There are no federal regulations or requirements that tax preparers must meet prior to preparing taxes. In California and Oregon there is. The GAO compared returns from both states and found that Oregon was more accurate. On average Oregon's 2001 federal returns were $250 more accurate than returns in the rest of the country which equates to $390 million in taxes paid by Oregon residents over what would have been paid if the accuracy rates were at the level of returns in the rest of the country. Seems like an equity issue. Oregon is doing a good job and its citizens are paying their share but citizens in other states aren't.

They also compared each program's costs and found that Oregon's costs were higher because the program includes testing and they are spread across fewer preparers.. The GAO estimated that Oregon's regulatory program cost in 2007 was about $6 million. They conclude "If only a small portion of the increased revenue that we found in Oregon is attributable to the Oregon regulatory regime, the regime would compare favorably to IRS's overall efforts to increase reporting accuracy."