they shall do, and what their qualifications
shall be.
As you know, under the present law, we
have an executive audit which is under the
executive department but under the super-
vision and direction of the state comp-
troller. This is the current type of audit
that you know of, similar to what takes
place when the C.P.A. or the accountants
come in and check the records and cast ac-
counts and try to make sure everything is
running in proper order.
What we are talking about in this pro-
posal is an audit which would occur after
the project or the item in question is con-
cluded. What we are speaking of in this
audit is this. It ought not to be under the
executive department because one does not
audit oneself. This is a type of audit by
the other branch of government which
might exercise this function, namely, the
legislative branch.
This is done in many other states. Its
purpose, however, we believe, in our Com-
mittee, should be much more than merely
casting accounts after the project item or
event has been concluded. We believe it
should go in depth into a determination of
performance as well as financial review.
Performance would mean whether the
money was spent for what it was appropri-
ated? Was the amount spent on what they
say they paid for? Or on items perhaps
that are totally different. Was a swimming
pool built instead of an addition to a
school? This is something like or akin to
what takes place when the General Ac-
counting Office in Washington moves into
a department and begins its examination
to find out whether or not the expenditures
have really been what the records say they
are. This is a proper function of the legis-
lative department.
The first question that arises is this. If
it is a proper function of the General As-
sembly, why do we have to put this into
the constitution? The constitution, of
course, is not only a matter of restrictions,
it is a document dealing with mandates,
that which you must do. We believe that
this is an item which should be mandated in
the constitution to require the General As-
sembly to act. True, they could act without
any prodding from the Constitutional Con-
vention. The sole purpose of this short,
succinct article is to make it clear that they
are required to act.
It just so happens that the present Gen-
eral Assembly has been making a study of
this very same subject, and has been mak- |
ing it since before this Convention con-
vened. It is a study in depth dealing not
only with the subject of state audit but
dealing also with the manner and method
by which the General Assembly shall ex-
amine state budgets and state finances, and
whether or not the State Fiscal Research
Bureau should be changed, not only as to
title, but as to what it in turn should do.
The Legislative Council has met. It has
come up with a proposed act which it has
already approved favorably.
But we believed in our Committee that
we still should have this in the constitution
because those of you who are of a prac-
tical nature, as I am sure all of you are,
know that sometimes some things that the
Legislative Council recommends do not al-
ways go through the General Assembly.
We believe that while we applaud the fact
that the Legislative Council is moving
forward, nevertheless without regard to
that situation, we should include in the
constitution this requirement.
The problem then arose as to what detail
should be involved. We felt that all that we
need to say is that the General Assembly
shall provide by law for post-audit of state
finances by persons under its control.
At that point I am very pleased to say
that others in the Convention, having ex-
amined this language, felt that while they
did not differ with the object, they thought
that there could be some changes which
might be useful and practical and avoid an
attempt to rewrite portions of the proposal
here on the floor.
We received a call from Delegate Gal-
lagher, Chairman of the Committee on the
Legislative Branch, who pointed this out.
Without going into the details of the dif-
ferences, he appointed a subcommittee of
five under Delegate Hanson, and 1 ap-
pointed a subcommittee of five under Dele-
gate Case. The group met and all of the
word surgery was performed across the
table without taking up the time of this
assemblage. It is for this reason that -you
will have before you in a moment or two,
not SF-I on the blue paper, but the amend-
ment which is on the white paper, and the
last four lines are what will be before you.
They read, "The General Assembly shall
provide by law for post-audit of state
finances by an agency of the General As-
sembly directed by a person appointed by it
and under its control."
You may feel that there is not any great
difference in the language. As to the sub- |
