honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Thursday, June 26, 2003

Audit veto puts focus on Lingle's motives

 •  Legislature leans toward session to override vetoes

By Johnny Brannon
Advertiser Staff Writer

Legislative Auditor Marion Higa and a top House lawmaker yesterday criticized Gov. Linda Lingle's veto of two bills that would have given Higa's office more authority to scrutinize how the administration spends public money.

"Whether the issue is control over $5 million or something else, I'm not sure," Legislative Auditor Marion Higa said.

Bruce Asato • The Honolulu Advertiser

Lingle, who has praised Higa's work to root out government waste, said she believed one of the bills was not necessary and that the other could clash with federal law and invite litigation.

She said Higa's office should continue to conduct audits that examine how departments are managed, but that some financial audits should continue to be conducted by private firms under contract to the departments they examine.

But House Majority Leader Scott Saiki suggested Lingle was backpedaling on her campaign pledges to work closely with Higa and seek aggressive audits of state departments.

He said he hoped lawmakers would override one or both vetoes if they agree to convene a special legislative session July 8.

Both bills received near-unanimous support in final House and Senate votes during the regular session.

HB 282 would establish a revolving fund administered by Higa's office to pay for financial audits. The measure would require that audited departments reimburse the office for the cost of certain audits.

In her veto message, Lingle said that would be "unduly cumbersome and potentially wasteful."

Many departments and agencies already must pay for independent financial audits to comply with state or federal money-managing regulations.

Lingle said the Legislature should appropriate more money for any additional audits that lawmakers want Higa to conduct.

But Higa said her office should administer all contracts for external audits, which cost about $5 million a year. She said Lingle's reasons for the veto did not make sense.

"Whether the issue is control over $5 million or something else, I'm not sure," Higa said. "... As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of money, it's a matter of independence."

At a news conference in Higa's office, Saiki questioned whether Lingle had grown shy of audits now that her administration could be held accountable for any problems discovered.

"We were actually somewhat disappointed that the governor objected to this bill during the session, because she did make this issue one of her planks during the campaign as a call for accountability," said Saiki, D-22nd (McCully, Pawa'a).

In a meeting with reporters, Lingle said audits could be very helpful in pointing out ways to save money, but also could be conducted with a "gotcha" mentality that is counterproductive.

She said the veto did not come out of concern that Higa would use audits to undermine her administration. The biggest problem with audits conducted under previous administrations, Lingle said, is that problems uncovered often were ignored.

"I hope Mrs. Higa will continue to do operational audits that will allow us to improve public services," Lingle said.

The other bill, SB 474, would give Higa's office access to information from the health and education departments that is subject to federal privacy guidelines.

Such data has factored into investigations of waste and fraud connected to special-education services provided under the Felix consent decree.

Higa currently is required to issue subpoenas to obtain some information, which often must be redacted to protect the identity of minors. The process is time-consuming and makes it harder to detect problems, she said.

But Lingle said the bill would likely cause parents to file expensive lawsuits against the state for circumventing federal regulations.

"In my opinion, this potential liability clearly exceeds any possible benefit that might result from this bill," she said in her veto message.

Also, Higa's office does not perform the type of financial audits that fall within exceptions to the privacy guidelines, so the bill would not accomplish its goal, Lingle said.

But Higa said it was ironic that the first vetoed bill would have given her authority over that type of "single" audit.

"It's a circular argument," Higa said. "We cannot get the revolving fund, which would enable us to do the single audit, and we can't get access to records because we don't do single audits."

Reach Johnny Brannon at jbrannon@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8070.