Posted Friday, Aug. 26, 2005, Kansas City Star
investigation of public funds - Editorials

Blunt Should Stop Impeding Audits


The public deserves to know how tax dollars are being spent in state and local governments. So Missouri Auditor Claire McCaskill must be able to do her job without interference.

Unfortunately, Gov. Matt Blunt has interfered.

Blunt, a Republican, has directed state agencies not to cooperate with the Democratic auditor’s office except under limited circumstances. His stance keeps the public from being better informed about state government operations.

At issue between Blunt and McCaskill are so-called “performance audits.” McCaskill is good at those — she digs deep and gives ideas on how to improve management practices as well as save tax dollars.

Her performance audit of the child-abuse hotline resulted in improvements that could save children’s lives. Her audit of the foster-care program resulted in more thorough background checks of foster parents.

An audit of the Department of Transportation revealed wasteful use of equipment. Another audit showed millions of dollars in excess interest paid by school districts because they didn’t seek competitive bond sales.

This is the kind of information the governor should want to know. After all, he campaigned on the promise of making government more efficient and saving money. Why wouldn’t he cooperate?

Blunt says the Missouri Constitution does not include “performance audits” in the auditor’s job description.

That’s true but insignificant. This type of auditing has long been the norm in Missouri.

McCaskill has been doing performance audits for six years. She did them during the administrations of Mel Carnahan and Bob Holden, both Democrats. Other auditors also have done performance audits. The last was Margaret Kelly, a Republican. Before that it was Jim Antonio, also a Republican. The General Assembly funded and approved the audits. McCaskill follows state law, which requires audits that meet federal standards of performance auditing.

McCaskill was re-elected in 2002 on her auditing record; she stressed her performance audits. She seems confident that if she were forced to go to the voters for a constitutional amendment that would defend her authority, they would support it.

Voters shouldn’t have to do that.

Blunt’s concern seems to be that McCaskill will use information in audits for political advantage. If state government is doing its job well, however, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Blunt risks looking like he is hiding something. Example: He initially resisted McCaskill’s attempts to find out what happened to the office furniture in the state motor vehicle offices when they were transferred to Blunt supporters. On Thursday, state officials said the furniture was sold to the fee offices.

McCaskill wants to launch a performance audit. This is an audit that needs to be done.

How McCaskill handles the information she finds will help to make her case for having access to state records. If she conducts audits for political reasons, she will discredit her office.

Blunt should open the records of state government and let the auditor in.