| Written by Mark Funkhouser,
|
David Walker declares - urgently and passionately - that one of his strongest concerns is the state of our profession in light of recent events. I believe Walker and share his concern, that's why I'd like him to recognize that his most powerful tool to shape the government auditing profession is his authority to promulgate standards for audits of government programs, activities, functions and organizations. Here's what he should do.
Take charge. I realize that, even for a man of apparently boundless energy and enthusiasm, there are not enough hours in the day. And the to-do list is undoubtedly long, what with terrorists, rogue accounting firms and the vice-president all requiring attention. Nevertheless, the standards-setting process is clearly not a high enough priority given its capacity to influence the issues that concern him most.
Re-write the entire exposure draft. Walker understands that words matter and his own flair for language is evident in his speeches. However, much of the writing in the exposure draft is long, redundant, and unnecessarily abstract. Active voice, parallel structures, stronger verbs, less repetition, and fewer adjectives and adverbs would make the document easier to read and interpret. When the language is muddy, unclear and thus difficult to understand the result is less acceptance of the standards by government audit organizations, particularly small, local government audit organizations. An audit agency head with any choice in the matter would be nuts to commit to compliance with standards he or she doesn't understand or cannot easily explain to staff, elected officials and other stakeholders. GAO has ample writing resources that could be put to use to fix this.
Rein in the commercial audit firms. To the extent that commercial audit firms use the standards-setting process primarily to expand their markets, the process has been corrupted, the credibility of the standard-setters will suffer, and acceptance of the standards will be diminished. I see at least two such possibilities in the exposure draft. First, is the addition of the chapter on attestation standards, which seems to allow commercial audit firms to conduct performance audits without meeting the standard for performance auditing. Second is the requirement that the employing organization of peer reviewers should have received an unqualified opinion on the review of their organization's system of quality controls. Effectively barring a large number of local government auditors from participating as reviewers would cede the field to commercial audit firms.
Free Marcia Buchanan. Marcia has been "Ms. Yellow Book" for more than a decade and has built up a network of relationships. We trust her to listen, to try to understand, and to explain the standards and the various interpretations and guidance documents as well as she can. Folks beyond the beltway appreciate her as often the only voice they know from within GAO. But I think she probably gets little support both in resources and respect for the importance (and magnitude) of the job she's doing. At a presentation to the Mid-America Audit Forum here in Kansas City in May, she stated publicly her desire to eventually leave her present role and return to auditing. At the Biennial Forum in Providence later that month she said in a presentation that people sometimes complain that the performance audit standards read as if an accountant wrote them. To which she says she responds, "Guilty as charged, I am a CPA." I can understand how she might feel burnt out but I can also understand why the powers that be at GAO would be prudent to keep her right where she is until she retires. The network that she's built up is too valuable and no one else at GAO wants to take on the job. So…keep her at it, but perhaps at a reduced level, and find ways to work others, with performance auditing backgrounds and strong writing skills, into the process.
Good standards and a system for monitoring adherence to standards enhances the credibility of government auditing, a profession that derives its value from credibility. Standards matter. They are at the heart of what we do. Changes should not be undertaken lightly, but should be given care, consideration and commitment commensurate with their importance to the profession.
|
Funkhouser on Auditing