PROVIDENCE – Once again, like the mythical Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a hill that perpetually rolls back down before he can reach the top, a group of Rhode Island lawmakers are pushing creation of an “Office of Inspector General.”
The advocates’ oft-stated belief: An inspector general would not only root out waste and fraud in government, they might have also spotted the structural failures that led to the emergency closure and ultimate demolition of the westbound Washington Bridge.
But the advocates, who are mostly Republican lawmakers, are trying to make their case this year on the heels of President Donald Trump’s firing of 17 independent inspector generals across the federal government.
And the perennial proposal has once again earned a cool reception from House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi who, on Wednesday, told The Journal ahead of a House Finance Committee hearing on the proposal: “I have always kept an open mind on the inspector general issue and will review the testimony provided at [the House Finance] committee hearing.”
The Rhode Island State House in Providence.
Shekarchi said he hasn’t yet been convinced of the need which, he pointed out, would duplicate services of existing offices in Rhode Island like the attorney general, auditor general, Office of the Internal Audit and the U.S. Attorney already “addressing corruption and waste in government.”
“In a very challenging budget year, I am concerned with the cost of the millions of taxpayer dollars it would take to create a new office,” he said.
His one last point to the outnumbered Republicans in the General Assembly who, for years, have cited the creation of an inspector general as their top priority: “One of President Trump’s first actions in January was to fire 17 independent inspectors general at government agencies. If the president felt they were not needed, why are they necessary in our state?”
House Minority Leader Michael Chippendale called the reference to what Trump did “a ridiculous connection” since, he said, there are “hundreds of inspector generals” across the country, and Trump only fired 17 he viewed as “inefficient.” As for Shekarchi’s comments, Chippendale said that the House Speaker would be “loathe to relinquish [the] power” he wields over audits and purse strings.
What does the legislation propose?
The legislation, introduced by Republican Rep. George Nardone and about two dozen other lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, calls for the creation of an Office of Inspector General, headed by an appointee chosen by “a majority vote of the governor, the attorney general, and the general treasurer” for a maximum of two five-year terms.
“If an inspector general is not selected within one month” of the start of his or her successor’s new term, the legislation says, “the governor shall appoint an inspector general.”
Minimum qualifications: At least five years experience in accounting, criminal justice, or a closely related profession and a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with a major in accounting, criminal justice, or a closelyrelated field of study.”
Massachusetts Inspector General Jeffrey S. Shapiro provided the Rhode Island lawmakers with a rundown of what his independent office had uncovered and pursued with a $10 million budget, a staff of 90 and subpoena powers. Among his examples: proof that a mayor received $180,000 in longevity bonuses to which he is not entitled and “up to $1.7 million in fees that were not collected by an independent state agency.”
The pushback?
Rhode Island already has two state-level auditors.
The legislature has an auditor general charged with rooting out waste, fraud and inefficiencies, and the Department of Administration has a separate Office of Internal Audit One takes its cues from a legislative leadership committee chaired by the House Speaker, while the other is an arm of the executive branch.
Nardone’s bill anticipated the auditor general and staff getting folded into the new Inspector General’s office.
Who could object? Andy Manca, Chief of the Office of Internal Audit (OIA), for one.
In a letter to the House Finance Committee, Manca said the new Inspector General’s office, as proposed, would not only duplicate the OIA’s work, but also that of the Program Integrity Unit within the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor and Training’s Underground Economy and Employee Misclassification Task Force, and the Office of the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Unit.
In the last fiscal year, Manca said the OIA Fraud Detection and Prevention Unit reviewed 527 fraud allegations and pursued 89 cases of fraud civilly resulting in either the courts or the Department of Human Services administrative division ordering repayment of a total of $307,520 due to fraudulent activity.
“Current pending criminal cases are estimated to result in overpayments in excess of $1.9 million,” Manca said.
“As many of the roles and responsibilities of the proposed Office of the Inspector General are already performed by OIA and other units of government, we recommend continued investment in state efforts to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse rather than the establishment of a new office,” Manca argued.
Jennifer J. Harrington, General Counsel and Legislative Liaison for the Narragansett Bay Commission made similar arguments.
Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, took no position on the pros or cons of having an inspector general but warned that the legislation would put public records off-limits to the public if the new audit office subpoenaed them, and limit who could say what about an investigation. (Current law says: “public records do not lose their public status merely because they are also part of a grand jury investigation.”)
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Does RI need an inspector general? Why Republicans say yes