More About Boxes

I have written before about moving the boxes as it relates to what level of government provides a service. If a service isn’t working at one level of government, move it to another. Decision-makers or critics often look for an organizational solution when there is a problem. Related to this is the tendency to create another management structure by moving the boxes when the current arrangement is not working.

In my previous position there was an elected executive who also had legislative responsibilities. She was the top administrator, that is, responsible for implementing policy, yet also part of the legislative body with other elected officials. This worked great when those who were elected to the positions could maintain positive relationships and were dedicated to good government. There were times when that was not the case. I can remember having conversations with a newspaper editor about wouldn’t it just be better if the executive position was separate and perhaps appointed. I would come back with “It’s the people not the boxes.”

In my current position, the top executive/administrative position is appointed by the elected body. The person in that position made our work easier because management was receptive to our audits. He valued our audit work as another piece of important information. Not once has he been defensive about our findings or interpreted them as a statement about his performance. I am hopeful that a person with similar qualities can be found now that he is leaving because I know from past experience that it’s the people in the boxes, not the box, which makes the difference. I have my fingers crossed.

Facts and stories

When auditees read the first draft of an audit a common response is that we did not talk about anything good that they have done. Our response is usually that our job is to identify problems, analyze why they occurred and how the situation could be improved. We are constrained by standards that require us to be fact-based. Establishing facts takes time. To include in the report an analysis of things that were going right would require the same standards be met. Since audit work is expensive, because of the time it takes to establish facts, it would not be cost effective to also analyze the successful parts of a service or program. However, we do try to add context so that there is an appreciation of the work that is being done to provide the service.

But from the perspective of a journalist trying to find a story that includes protagonist, antagonist, and facts that will capture a reader's interest, our reports are not hard hitting enough. When I have campaigned as an auditor, the common response was always that people had no idea there were auditors doing the kind of work we do. Auditors face a quandary, work for change or work to create an audit report that will capture a journalist's eye so that it will be reported and the public will see that there is accountability. Many of our audits fall under the radar because management has agreed with our findings and our recommendations. Or the audit area is just not interesting or big dollar enough. The choice is usually to work for change and not necessarily news coverage, so many stories never get told.

Not statistically significant

The Fair Housing Council of Oregon conducted audits from the citizens' point of view to determine if housing discrimination existed. In Ashland and Beaverton, when African American and white testers were sent to the same location, two-thirds of the black testers faced discrimination in Ashland and 78 percent in Beaverton. Management response in Beaverton was that the testing sample was too small to be statistically significant. But one wonders what the tolerance level is. Even though it was not a large enough sample to generalize to the full population, is it then okay to have some discrimination?