Lately, auditing has become all the rage in Oklahoma politics. As an auditor, this excites me; audits can identify mismanagement, waste, fraud and inefficiency, and in the case of government, can make worthwhile government programs work better.

No one wants to spend good money on badly run programs. The recent state auditor’s report on the Oklahoma Health Department shows the power of auditing. If Oklahoma’s state agencies are the proverbial henhouse, the auditor can make sure the henhouse is operating as we (the owners) expect. Unfortunately, the auditing envisioned by Oklahoma politicians allows the foxes to audit the henhouse.

Recently, Gov. Mary Fallin and two highly partisan legislators chose an “accountability commission” to audit state agencies (even though there is already an elected state auditor), required it to look only for cost savings and required the agencies to implement the recommendations. Separately, Republican legislators have been calling for an audit of public education in Oklahoma, presumably in response to the teacher strikes, but in reality with the same goals as the accountability commission. These efforts suffer from serious flaws.

Audits benefit an entity by reporting gaps to management to spur improvements. For an audit to succeed, it must be perceived as independent and objective — and not as pursuing an ulterior motive or a predetermined outcome. The result is a set of findings that can be trusted by management and owners, who can then monitor the audited unit to ensure it is making the changes necessary to address the gaps.

The recent auditing ideas are just a ruse to avoid spending money on Oklahoma’s needs, and they spend more money doing it. Education, prisons, roads, human services — these are services that the vast majority of Oklahomans believe the state should be providing. By auditing them only to identify cost savings, the Republicans are violating all the rules of effective auditing. They will not be perceived as independent or objective — rather, as pursuing the motive of cutting funds, which is the political outcome their creators want, even if the real gap is that they need more qualified employees or more financial resources. And we already have an independent state auditor.

A real audit starts with risk — the audit confirms the targeted unit is effectively addressing a risk. In the case of state agencies, the broad risk is that the agency is not achieving its purpose cost-effectively — i.e., (a) that the agency isn’t achieving its purpose, and (b) that it isn’t doing so cost-effectively. Detailed risks may include:

• Lack of resources to process claims could result in a case backlog, undermining the department’s mission, imposing other costs on the state and exposing it to liability.

• IT equipment or services may insufficiently support efficient work performance, resulting in longer process times and manual procedures requiring greater oversight;

• Insufficient oversight of financial transactions and contracts could result in fraud, mistakes or unnecessary spending;

• Poor guidance or communication could result in unclear goals, tactics or strategies;

• A culture of fear could prevent reporting of wasteful activity, fraud or ethical violations.

An audit of state agencies must address all these and other risks — not just wasteful spending. The question for auditors is, what is the state doing to make sure these risks don’t come to fruition. If the agency lacks the resources necessary to carry out its mission efficiently and effectively, the state must offer a solution that will address this risk. More funding may be required to address these gaps. For auditing to succeed, it must explore all these possibilities and not just what a few partisan politicians feel would support their political goals.

Insidiously, those seeking to restrict spending on state programs and public education have caused significant gaps in the agencies they control and are now seeking audits to identify those gaps to justify continued spending limits. For example, the recent health department audit revealed that the Republican-controlled Legislature and governor underfunded the agency and appointed oversight personnel who failed to properly oversee it. To mismanage and underfund state activities and then seek audits to find the resulting problems, only to justify further spending decreases is an insult to Oklahoma taxpayers and a recipe for further mediocrity.

By all means, let’s have the state auditor perform strong, credible performance audits and publish the results to Oklahomans, who can debate solutions based on real facts and not the white-washed ones the current henhouse management wants us to see.

Any good business professional knows that the best time to be audited is right when you assume responsibility for the audited unit. Perhaps we can change management, and then call for a real audit to start on the road to fixing what’s wrong with Oklahoma’s state government.

Adam Kupetsky is a member of the Tulsa World Community Advisory Board. Opinion pieces by board members appear regularly in this space.