<\/p>\n
Save Austin Now Treasurer Leland Bickers presents signatures in February for a measure requiring an external audit, which appears on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposition I. The city has its own external audit underway, but Prop I author Bill Aleshire told our Editorial Board, \u201cOurs is more comprehensive.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Sara Diggins\/Austin American-Statesman<\/p>\n
As it appears on the ballot, Austin\u2019s Proposition I suggests a false choice: audit or no audit?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
But it\u2019s not as if no one is scrutinizing the spending at City Hall. A highly effective city auditor\u2019s office, with a staff of two dozen people, already examines contracts<\/a>, investigates potential waste or misuse of funds<\/a> and even produces\u00a0podcasts<\/a> about their findings.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Plus a new city ordinance requires an external efficiency audit of every city department every three years, and a consultant is now tackling that $5.2 million endeavor<\/a>.<\/p>\n How many more audits does Austin need?<\/p>\n Prop I demands another layer<\/a>. The citizen-led ballot initiative by Save Austin Now calls for an \u201cIndependent Affordability and Efficiency Initiative\u201d \u2014 an even more expansive external audit \u2014 every five years.<\/p>\n We all have a stake in ensuring taxpayer dollars are used efficiently. And with last year\u2019s defeat of the Proposition\u00a0Q property tax hike, voters sent a clear message that City Hall must demonstrate greater fiscal accountability<\/a>.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n But at some point, hiring even more consultants becomes its own exercise in inefficiency, while Prop I contains other worrisome provisions. We recommend voters reject the measure Nov. 3.<\/p>\n READ MORE: Statesman Editorial Board Texas General Election Recommendations<\/a><\/p>\n Dueling audits arrive<\/p>\n We understand the frustrations that gave rise to Prop I. We opposed last year\u2019s Prop\u00a0Q<\/a> over concerns about years of rising tax bills, diminishing returns and, at times,\u00a0careless use of taxpayer dollars<\/a>.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Since 2018, the typical homeowner\u2019s city tax bill has risen from $1,317 to $2,188 \u2014 a steep increase that was partially self-inflicted, as voters approved the tax hike funding Project Connect and numerous city bond packages.<\/p>\n Austinites want assurances their dollars are being used well, and an audit emerged as the solution. From separate camps came dueling audit proposals.<\/p>\n While Save Austin Now was gathering petition signatures to put Prop I on the ballot, Mayor Kirk Watson pushed ahead with his own external audit proposal, which the City Council passed in February. As the city hired Public Works\u00a0LLC to do the job, Watson promised a City Hall review<\/a> that will be \u201ctransformative and comprehensive.\u201d<\/p>\n That should have been a win for everyone. Instead, Save Austin Now put its own audit proposal before voters.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n \u201cOurs is more comprehensive,\u201d Prop I author Bill\u00a0Aleshire, a taxpayer advocate and former Travis County judge, told our Editorial Board. A Prop I audit would not only examine whether services are provided efficiently and produce the desired outcomes; it would study whether city services were affordable for households and businesses \u201cof various levels of income and wealth,\u201d Aleshire said.<\/p>\n If voters approved Prop I, that effort would likely get blended somehow with the city-initiated audit already underway. The added features of Prop I entail more work for the consultant, which would make the review more expensive.\u00a0This is where the greater concern comes in.<\/p>\n Austin City Council candidate Misael Ramos listens Oct. 7 during a rally opposing Proposition I. The measure would requires an outside auditor to identify enough savings to cover its own contract, creating a skewed incentive to find unnecessary cuts.<\/p>\n Jay Janner\/Austin American-Statesman<\/p>\n Pressure to find cuts<\/p>\n Prop I requires the outside auditor to identify enough savings to cover its own contract. That may sound appealing: The audit will pay for itself.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n It really means the auditor would start with a quota:\u00a0Find a certain dollar amount in cuts.<\/p>\n Rather than follow the evidence where it leads, the auditor would hunt for a predetermined amount of savings. And that self-funding dictate would stand for future audits, even after earlier ones delivered efficiencies that leave less to cut.<\/p>\n At the same time, city budgets are only growing tighter: State law caps the annual increases at 3.5%, a cushion quickly absorbed by the rising costs of healthcare, fuel and cost-of-living raises for staff. And the largest chunk of Austin\u2019s general fund pays for policing, which by state law cannot be cut.<\/p>\n At some point the search for savings will meet the law of diminishing returns.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Aleshire argues voters can later repeal Prop I if the city runs out of places to cut. In our view, the better alternative is to avoid this predicament by rejecting Prop I now.<\/p>\n Aleshire also argues Prop I does something else important: It ensures an audit would happen because it would be enshrined in the city charter, essentially the city\u2019s constitution.<\/p>\n But the city-initiated audit is already happening. And it would take a supermajority vote \u2014 at least nine of the 11 City Council members \u2014 to change the ordinance that set it in motion<\/a>.<\/p>\n ALSO READ: How we reach our endorsements \u2014 and why your vote is yours<\/a><\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Auditors already working<\/p>\n Still, the public\u2019s skepticism of City Hall is well earned. In pressing ahead with a $295 million parks and libraries bond we oppose<\/a> on the Nov. 3 ballot \u2014 and amending the city\u2019s own policies<\/a> to enable more borrowing \u2014 some City Council members have bristled at the fiscal restraint that is needed.<\/p>\n An expansive external audit, whether it\u2019s the city-initiated one or Prop I, will surely find inefficiencies and questionable use of funds. A\u00a0similar review in Houston<\/a> found a duplication of vendor contracts across departments and a significant number of managers supervising few people, all areas ripe for streamlining.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n And it\u2019s true: Improvements are needed.<\/p>\n But those examples illustrate something else: the effectiveness of the Austin City Auditor\u2019s Office, which investigated and publicly reported those issues, providing clear guidance on how city departments should strengthen their procedures.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n