In 2008, the Kaua‘i voters approved a measure sponsored by the County Council to amend the County Charter to create an Office of the County Auditor (OCA). The amendment established the OCA within the legislative branch (i.e. the County Council)
In 2008, the Kaua‘i voters approved a measure sponsored by the County Council to amend the County Charter to create an Office of the County Auditor (OCA).
The amendment established the OCA within the legislative branch (i.e. the County Council) and empowered it to make performance audits of the funds, programs and operations of any agency of the county and to make follow-up audits to monitor compliance with the recommendations it had made.
The amendment also authorized the formation of an Audit Committee to advise the OCA as to formulation of plans for audits, conduct of audits, evaluation of audit findings and the audit process. It was prescribed that a member of the County Council should serve on the five-person committee. No such committee exists in the law relating to the State Auditor nor in the O‘ahu auditor provision and the Committee has never been formed. The failure to implement the committee deprives the OCA of the support and experience of those who would be serving, but it greatly simplifies the OCA’s decision path.
In September 2009, Mr. Ernesto Pasion, formerly a Deputy County Clerk who had served the County since 1996, was appointed County Auditor and he has remained in that position since then. Mr. Pasion reports to the County Council.
In the past two years the OCA has issued six reports on the audits it has performed. The subjects were:
• Implementation of Recommendations of the Cost Control Commission Concerning Energy Savings
• Follow Up Audit of the County of Kaua‘i Building Division concerning the Kilauea Gym
• Audit of County Capital Project Management concerning the Kaiakea Fire Station Project
• Audit of Fuel Costs, Consumption and Management
• Audit of County Capital Project Management concerning the Road Maintenance Program
• Audit of County Cash Management
In each case the reports were well considered and their findings and recommendations were clear. Under OCA procedures the party audited was given the opportunity to respond to the positions stated in the report. As might be expected the auditee responses were varied. In one case the findings and recommendations were all accepted, but typically some reservations, qualifications or disputes were registered.
The function of an auditor is a difficult one. He must be persistent and yet tactful. The party subject to the audit will inevitably be sensitive to a review made of his performance which, with hindsight, may well be critical. It is a credit to the OCA that the audits made have been accepted without any significant rancor.
A structural problem, however, exists. The OCA is given under the Charter appropriate powers to enable its access and obtaining necessary records and then to make its findings and recommendations. But it has no powers of enforcement. In a number of respects its position is similar to that of the State Office of Information Practices (OIP), which is empowered to interpret the Hawai‘i Sunshine Law and the compliance of government agencies with it. When the OIP approves of the conduct of the governmental body the interpretation is welcomed, and when the body disagrees with it is ignored.
The OCA does have some limited power to pursue its findings. When the OCA finds conduct by an audited party to be illegal it has the ability to present its findings to the police or other enforcement entity, but when its findings are of the nature that the agency failed to find the better or more economic way to accomplish its work, its follow up prerogatives are pretty much restricted to persuasion.
The audits made to date have principally related to the duties of the Department of Public Works, although the audits as to Energy, Fuel and Cash Management have been of broader scale. Public Works is an inviting choice as it comprises the highest segment of departmental costs of the County and its work is in prominently in the public view. The selection of topics as to which audits may be performed is necessarily a complex one. Some agencies do not readily lend themselves to an audit. The operations of the County Attorney’s office have been broadly criticized by members of the public, but the nature of its operation makes it difficult to study. It would seem that a review of the functions of our Planning Department might be advantageous and perhaps consideration the operations of the semi-autonomous Board of Water Supply could be profitable. Other options, of course, exist for future audits.
We are fortunate that the OCA has been formed and its work seems to have been well pursued by Mr. Pasion and his staff. His efforts deserve our support as it is in all of our interests to have a County that is functioning properly and cost effectively.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
