Brown turns to audits in secretary of state race

SALEM, Ore. (AP) - Secretary of State Kate Brown has staked much of her case for re-election on her aggressive auditing of government agencies.
Brown, a Democrat, says she's done 236 audits finding $180 million in savings. A television ad shows her standing in an office with piles of black binders stacked around her.
But Brown's Republican rival, Knute Buehler, says she hasn't done enough to turn those recommended savings into actual dollars. Their spat has vaulted a mundane government function toward the spotlight in one of Oregon's only competitive political races this year.
"We're producing more audits with bigger impact than before," Brown told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
The Oregon constitution tasks the elected secretary of state as the "auditor of public accounts," among other functions. Brown's auditing division employs 71 people who examine the performance and finances of government agencies and recommend improvements where necessary. Most local governments also are required to hire a certified public accountant to audit their financial statements each year.
With a disciplined, well-funded campaign, Buehler has given Brown a tough re-election fight, and she's turned to the work of her auditing division to lay out her case for a second term.
In 2008, the year before she took office, the secretary of state's auditing division identified $8 in savings for every $1 spent on auditing, Brown points out. In 2010, the figure ballooned to $64 in savings for each dollar invested.
"I would say that's a real return on your investment," Brown said.
Brown's office produced data showing auditors found $152 million in savings in 2010. The state spent $2.4 million dollars on those audits, backing up her claim of $64 in savings identified for every dollar spent investigating them.
Over a 10-year period, however, 2010 was an outlier, boosted by a single audit of the Department of Revenue. The review found 66,000 people who should have filed a state income tax return but didn't in the 2007 tax year, leaving about $108 million on the table. Returns on audit investments were below 10-to-1 in five of the previous nine years.
Regardless of the ratio, Buehler asserts that Brown isn't doing enough to actually realize the savings her auditors have identified.
"There's just a lack of accountability, and I think we see that in so many ways," Buehler said.
Buehler says Brown hasn't used several hammers in state law that she could deploy to force agencies to comply with her audit recommendations. In some circumstances, the secretary of state can have the state withhold 10 percent of the money owed to local governments if they won't correct problems identified in an audit, or she can recommend that the governor withhold pay from state officials who drag their feet.
Buehler's campaign also says Brown has exaggerated the potential savings or failed to audit certain agencies. He says Brown's auditors missed red flags
Brown acknowledged that she couldn't say exactly how much money was saved or recovered as a result of her audits, but she said her office has stepped up efforts to follow up on recommendations. Brown meets with agency directors to discuss audits, she said, and auditors sometimes do follow-up audits to check on progress.
Auditing standards say their findings are only recommendations and not mandates, said Gary Blackmer, director of the auditing division under Brown. Buehler's recommendations risk violating those standards, he said.
"That starts approaching a mandate when you say, 'You either do what the audit says or we're going to take your pay away,'" Blackmer said.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Brown and her opponent, Knute Buehler, were recently on KATU's Sunday morning political show, "Your Voice, Your Vote." Watch the show below.
She doesnt look well...time to retire.
Kate Brown is counting a lot of eggs before they hatch. Show us the true savings.
Mke one trip to the Oregon Department of Revenue, Look at all refunds for more than $1,000,000.00, Simple audit, have lunch....................hmmm maybe $150.00 time spent. Now that's a good return on money spent!!
Interesting links (yes, it's only Wiki, but at least it's something..):
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Brown_(politician)
Â
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Knute_Buehler
Kate Brown is nothing but a paid shill for the lawyer's union, the Oregon Bar Association! During her term in office she has violated her oath of office by taking direction from the OSB, rather than from the Oregon Constitution and Laws. She should be turned out of office - and prosecuted - before her actions end up costing us ALL millions of dollars in damages and fines!
Sweet G.I.L.F.
 @gjUhnhwwMspREt You, sir or madam, are insane.
I don't trust any of those folks. They are all crooks and liars which is the definition of a politician.
In the voter's Pamphlet she is using an old photo of herself presumably too look younger. She is misrepresenting herself which undermines her credibility as an elected official. Oregonians vote this one OUT!
 @Rest of Story Typically there is a rule regarding how old the photo can be, so it can't be that old.Â
You neglect to mention that in the TV spot that Sec Brown is running, she also does a good deal of muckraking. The first half of the commercial focuses on the fact that her opponent is a Republican, and attempts to malign him by giving the appearance that he only represents the 'rich' in the state.Â
Â
Frankly, I would have likely voted for her if for no other reason than the fact that Dr Buehler has no elected experience. Your commercial, however, sealed your fate for me. The ballot that I just sent in, I checked his name.Â
 @MarkKpic "Frankly, I would have likely voted for her if for no other reason than the fact that Dr Buehler has no elected experience."
Â
Not having political experience is a plus in my book anymore.
 @Scotty9  @MarkKpic Or, stated another way.. if 'experienced political persons lead to failure half of the time, why not just vote in the inexperienced ones and get the same failure rate' -- take a chance on something that might work, if all probabilities and prospects for success are roughly the same.
"Brown's office produced data showing auditors found $152 million in savings in 2010. The state spent $2.4 million dollars on those audits, backing up her claim of $64 in savings identified for every dollar spent investigating them"
Â
I think Buehler's criticism or point is a fair one: so what 'found savings' really mean? Â Was that money that was not spent? Were the funds diverted back to the general fund? Were the 'excess' funds returned to taxpayers? Or, (and having some experience in government leads me to this hunch..) more likely, were these just audits to justify someone(s) job(s), and there was little -- if any -- actual difference in funding/spending in these audited agencies. Saving "we've found savings" might sound good, but what does it actually mean??? (reasonable and critical readers should ask that early and often and expect a detailed answer).
Â
Also, from my experience in the Federal system, I would estimate the total cost of Federal government could be reduced easily and simply by changing all the bureaucratized and onerous procedures written into Federal procurement and contracting. The Feds typically pay about 30%-35% in excess of what a similar contract/good/service would demand out in the competitive private sector. Â There are lots of potential lurking / latent savings to be had, but the combination of blind political correctness and entrenched relationships between people really stand in the way of bringing those to fruition.
Â
This is one independent that didn't vote for Brown.
Let me footnote with this statement from the story -- which brings all those points above home ever so clearly:
Â
"Brown acknowledged that she couldn't say exactly how much money was saved or recovered as a result of her audits"
Â
Ya think???
 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE Not surprising since some of it is in areas outside her jurisdiction. She can audit and show where money should be cut, saved, refunded, etc., but she isn't in charge of making sure those actions are taken unless they are in the SoS office. As such, it wouldn't be easy to be able to tell what was done and what wasn't. Maybe the law should require those entities to report back to the SoS with regards to the audit with what steps they took, the outcome, money saved, etc.
 @Jenni S. Well, fair enough, and I do realize that. The problem is the 'auditing power' (add mental italics around the power part), really doesn't mean much.  Imagine if you were in another state agency, and the 'central scrutinizer' said to your organization: 'hey, we have identified some waste in your agency and we can show you how to save a few bucks'.  Well, knowing a little of how an agency works, the first thing that happens is the people on the receiving end immediately think/say, 'what the #&@*@#( do they know about what we need and how we spend our money'. Then, the second thing that happens is, the agency in question finds every way to justify their current spending and also does everything they can to spend up to their current budget to ensure every mechanism is in place to be funded at that level in the next FY. etc. etc.
What would work better, is to deal with the budget issues on an agency basis, within each agency. Â The people in the agencies usually know where the 'dead weight' is/lies, and being in the chain of command/bureaucratic hierarchy, are conveniently in place to deal with it. Further, decrees to reduce expenses would come from within, not from some other agency that doesn't have a clue about the day-to-day operations of another agency.
Â
Why does the SoS need a staff of 70 staff to justify the job of one agency director?