By CHRIS DUGOVICH

Chris Dugovich
Council 2 President/Executive Director

THE 2005 LEGISLATIVE SESSION ended as it began: with a triumphant celebration at the passage of performance audits.

House Speaker Frank Chopp—for whom performance audits were a long priority and who ushered them through the House in January—gained high-profile company when Governor Christine Gregoire embraced the concept during her campaign and underscored a commitment to government accountability during her inauguration.

Now Washington’s political leadership can celebrate a real victory, and the people of Washington can hopefully be spared a redundant and unnecessary initiative from Tim Eyman.

It seems 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. Of course, following three consecutive years in which either his statewide initiatives did not qualify or were soundly defeated at the ballot box—despite raising over $1 million and pocketing a tidy six figure stipend—this one seems like a surefire winner. (Has anyone thought to audit his performance?)

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

In fact, the only thing I-900 will do is create an extra layer 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 at times 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.

But while these 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. Losses 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?

Is a rural county road crew that has lost 40 percent of its funding—and therefore isn’t plowing the snow as much or replacing gravel on the roads—failing to perform its mission? Or are they simply out of money, and doing the best they can?

It would be great if we included 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 duplicative 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 can help restore that confidence—an idea clearly not lost on Chopp, Gregoire and others.

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 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.