|
|
|
The Ombudsman: Another Dimension of Accountability - December 2005 |
Auditing isn’t the only accountability tool. The mission, framework and methods of performance auditing have parallels in other accountability mechanisms and problem-solving strategies. As the elected Portland Auditor I have greater freedom to explore accountability strategies to accomplish the mission of my office. In addition to the 10 staff conducting performance audits, there are 54 other staff in my office. The Ombudsman is one of several strategies I introduced during my time as Portland Auditor.
Originally developed in Sweden several hundred years ago, the term refers to an independent investigator who resolves public complaints, from an objective point of view. The ombudsman (a Swedish word that is actually gender-neutral) is not an advocate for the citizen, and does not replace other avenues of appeal, but offers one last means of resolving a frustrated citizen’s problem. In many cases the ombudsman sides with the agency’s position, yet the ombudsman may provide the first clear and compelling explanation that the citizen has heard. Alternately, the ombudsman may agree with the citizen and work with the agency to modify its policies or practices to resolve this and future problems. Ombudsman offices have long histories of impact in the United Kingdom and Canada.
I was told that two characteristics are critical for the success of an ombudsman: independence and objectivity. (Where had I heard that before?)
I have attended several ombudsman conferences and leave them feeling educated and inspired, much like our ALGA conferences. Their topics will sound very familiar to you: Report Writing, Getting Recommendations Implemented, Ethics, Conducting Investigations, Coping With Tight Budgets, Setting Up an Ombudsman Office, and Proactive Communication Skills. Their business meetings speak of projects like “outreach” which is assisting jurisdictions interested in an ombudsman, standards development, peer reviews, and newsletter logistics.
Here is one example from the 2002 Annual Report: “The complaint related to code enforcement fees imposed upon the owner of a rental property for electrical work that was done in 1997 by a contractor who failed to purchase a permit or have the work inspected, although the contractor charged the owner for the permit.”
In this case, the original lien of $71.50 ballooned to $2,600 even as the owner diligently worked with the Bureau of Development Services (BDS) to resolve the issue. In this report, the Ombudsman made three recommendations: 1) Cancel the fees and penalties; 2) Improve internal systems to address code violations at an early stage to avoid the accumulation of assessments and liens; and 3) Increase enforcement against contractors who do not obtain permits. The amount Bureau of Development Services initially agreed to waive was substantially less than what our report recommended. An Ombudsman has no authority to enforce recommendations, but may draw public attention to recommendations. The publication of the report in this case resulted in some media attention and interest by the public. Ultimately, in April 2002 BDS refunded half of the liens that the owner had paid to the City, some $1,300. Although this was a partial resolution to the complaint, the systemic issue of the fairness of the revolving fees, particularly as they accrue for work done without permits in the past, was not resolved.”
Gary Blackmer is City Auditor of Portland, Oregon
| |
I see an opportunity for ombudsman offices to borrow from audit practices regarding the elements of the finding. Ombudsman investigations produce a clear and strong narrative regarding a systemic problem, and the recommendations are carefully considered, but they lack the persuasive force of “effect.” |
Describing the magnitude of costs, dissatisfaction, lost time, victimization, and general confusion can increase the likelihood that management will be convinced to change its policies and practices. Criteria can be challenging for those cases that are clearly “unfair.” City administrative rules may not fit every circumstance and the report would question their rigid application.
| |
I would like the voters to establish the Ombudsman in the charter, since the office is only a creature of the City Council’s code. In doing so, I would like to offer the public a guarantee of quality similar to what our charter promises for its performance audits: that they are conducted according to generally accepted government auditing standards. I think ombudsman investigations could also be conducted according to those standards, and I am watching the progress of the field of ombudsman. |
With the U.S. Ombudsman Association moving toward a robust set of standards, they could be more appropriate for the Portland ombudsman. In the meantime the Ombudsman Office will continue to conduct its work in a professional, objective, and independent manner in conformance with its office procedures and the mission of the Auditor’s Office.
| |
For those cases that are more complex and consequential, the ombudsman conducts an investigation and issues a report. An investigation produces recommendations that address the individual’s complaint and often makes “systemic” recommendations to prevent future recurrences. |
These investigations follow a pattern close to an audit, though they could learn a few tricks from us. Many ombudsman offices ask for a management response to include in the report.
| |
The Bureau maintained that City Code established the property owner as the responsible party, that a permit was mandatory, that it could not accept payment for the permit from the property owner because it was a commercial property and required a commercial-licensed electrician, and that it was not responsible for regulating the property-owner, not the contractor (who in this case had gone out of business).
|
While the bureau’s actions were justified by the rules, we argued that the rigid application of the rules were unfair for this property owner’s situation. When the newspaper published this story, many also saw it the same way. This report did not change the bureau’s practices, but it helped tip the bureau toward substantial reform, involving a rewrite of the building code, and a new Commissioner who changed the regulatory philosophy and put an end to these kinds of complaints.
| |
I am most interested in their standards development efforts and introduced several members of the Standards Committee to our own Government Auditing Standards. In some parts I can see how our standards have influenced their most recent update. (You can read more about the United States Ombudsman Association and the efforts of our office on the internet.) |
There are significant differences, too. To not discourage future complainants, the government ombudsman takes vigorous actions to protect the confidentiality of complainants and most of their efforts go unreported. In some jurisdictions the ombudsman files are completely confidential. There are also different kinds of ombudsman: corporate settings that deal with consumer complaints, corporate or nonprofit settings that deal with employees, university settings that deal with students and faculty, as well as government settings that deal with the public. At the federal level, an environmental ombudsman is located in the EPA Inspector General’s Office. However, some jurisdictions have ombudsman offices that serve as advocates for children or the elderly, which may not always practice objectivity.
| |
I realized that my elected office could provide that “safe harbor” for an ombudsman. After conducting more research and additional advice from Duncan Fowler, the ombudsman for King County, Washington, I proposed to Council that my office provide ombudsman services. They approved an ombudsman reporting directly to me, a deputy ombudsman, and office support position. In July 2001, we opened the doors. |
The ombudsman filled a need that Portland residents, businesses, and bureaus had. The ombudsman has worked with bureaus to add some humanity to the enforcement of building codes, the collection of delinquent water bills, car tows, and a number of other systemic and contentious administrative issues. The ombudsman has regularly advocated for better communications and notification processes from city agencies to the public – simple and unambiguous language is often the cause for problems. The ombudsman has also explained to many citizens that the City’s rules and enforcement practices were appropriate. The office handles about 350 calls per year and most cases are resolved with research of rules and procedures, and discussions with bureau personnel and complainants. I sometimes call them “micro-audits.”
|
“I would like the voters to establish the Ombudsman in the charter...In doing so, I would like to offer the public a guarantee of quality similar to what our charter promises for its performance audits...”
|
|
“While the bureau’s actions were justified by the rules, we argued that the rigid application of the rules were unfair for this property owner’s situation. When the newspaper published this story, many also saw it the same way.”
|
|
“I see an opportunity for ombudsman offices to borrow from audit practices regarding the elements of the finding.”
|
|
“I have attended several ombudsman conferences and leave them feeling educated and inspired, much like our ALGA conferences.”
|
|
“The ombudsman has regularly advocated for better communications and notification processes from city agencies to the public...”
|
| I was told that two characteristics are critical for the success of an ombudsman: independence and objectivity. (Where had I heard that before?) |
|
Auditing isn’t the only accountability tool. The mission, framework and methods of performance auditing have parallels in other accountability mechanisms and problem-solving strategies.
|
|
In the first few months in office I received many phone calls from citizens who felt they had been unfairly treated by city employees, or contradictory or ambiguous rules, confusing or capricious decisions, or…you have probably heard the same complaints. Mark Funkhouser spoke of the three E’s – efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. This is one means of addressing the third, case by case. Performance audit was too big and cumbersome for the problem at hand – it would |
be like using a road grader to smooth a garden path. In a chance conversation with Michael Mills, a City Hall staffer and former Anchorage Ombudsman, I learned about the ombudsman as a means of addressing these kinds of problems and a bit of its history.
|
|
| Users' Comments |
|
Average user rating
|
|
|
|
|
|
