2002 NLPES Fall Training conference Notes
Delivering the Message to the Agency
Moderator: Shan Hayes, Performance Audit Manager, Arizona Office of the Auditor General
After each speaker shared brief comments, Shan Hayes facilitated the panel discussion on ways that agencies and auditors can promote and impede constructive relationships.
Speaker: Philip Durgin, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC)
Mr. Durgin provided an outline of his talk which focused on the Pennsylvania LBFC's
policies and norms that help establish constructive relationships with agencies. First, the LBFC does not choose project topics, but rather responds to legislative requests. This spares them any appearance of prejudgment of the agency or program. Second, the JLBC usually contacts agency representatives early rather than make the agency wait for the formal notification process. This early, informal contact helps to prevent speculation and uncertainty regarding the audit's origin. Third, at the entrance conference the LBFC staff review with the agency a preliminary statement of scope and objectives, tentative time frame and schedule of important dates, listing of audit staff, initial information request, agency liaison, and the agency's opportunity for input at the end of the audit. Fourth, the reports are released at a public meeting of the LBFC, so the agency is motivated to be cooperative during the audit process.
Besides these policies, Mr. Durgin said that the LBFC normally: remains open with the agency during the audit, lets the agency use the LBFC as a means to communicate with the General Assembly, keeps the tone of reports factual and constructive, avoids formal exit conferences, and remains flexible in changing the draft report in the early-stages.
Mr. Durgin also reviewed the things that agencies and the auditors can do that impede constructive relationships. The agency may delay in providing information, want all information requests to be put into writing or channeled through a single person. On the other hand, the auditors may ask for information that is not used or has already been requested. Also, when auditors extend the fieldwork beyond the timeframe presented originally, the agency can become frustrated and impatient.
Speaker: Lisa Eddy, Performance Audit Division Manager, Arizona Office of the Auditor General
Ms. Eddy focused her remarks on the importance of obtaining agency "buy-in". She reminded auditors to consider the agency's other priorities. When the agency feels that auditors understand the former's mission and priorities outside of the audit, it helps to build confidence in the auditors. Ms. Eddy also recommended regular and frequent meetings. The auditors should be responsive to any agency request for meetings. She noted that unlike the Pennsylvania LBFC's policy of avoiding formal exit conferences, the Arizona OAG relies on the exit conferences to help the agency understand the writing process and format of the final report. Lastly, Ms. Eddy recommended that auditors ask agency staff for feedback in developing audit issues. When the agency helps to develop the issues, the "buy-in" to the audit is more likely.
Speaker: Terry Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
Mr. Stewart has been involved with 19 performance audits and 17 financial audits of the Dept. of Corrections in the last 17 years. He agreed with Ms. Eddy that agency "buy-in" is essential. Before providing tips for auditors to get that "buy-in", he warned that some factors which impede effective relationships are out of the agency's and the auditors' control. He asked that auditors understand the agency's perception of why the audit was mandated (by legislature, by sunset law, by special request). He also reminded auditors that whether an audit recommendation becomes a "living reality" depends upon the bureaucracy. He warned that bureaucratic inertia can kill audit recommendations. Since the recommendations cannot be enforced by auditors, he suggested that they spend more time get agency "buy-in" from the start of the audit.
To get agency "buy-in", Mr. Stewart suggested that the agency and audit directors/managers should direct their staffs to collaborate and that the constructive tone of the relationship be established at the entrance conference. He asked that auditors remain professional, objective, and open to agency communication. He noted that frequent meetings and auditor openness help to prevent surprises at the end of the audit.
Speaker: Cathy Eden, Director, Arizona Department of Health and human Services
Ms. Eden began by sharing that although she is the head of an agency, she understands the auditor role because her agency has regulatory functions. Her recommendations to auditors for improved relationships included: ensuring that auditors are knowledgeable, keeping communication open, and understanding the inherent power relations between the agency and the auditors. Consequently, the auditors should be aware of the effects of their report's tone and the tone of their communication throughout the audit. She also argued that auditors should understand that there is no such thing as legislative intent, a point that she admitted was hard to sell to a group of legislative auditors.
Panel discussion:
Moderator Shan Hayes offered the following topics and invited various panelists to respond:
What are things that impede the working relationship?
- Communication breakdowns
- Distrust (for example, agency supervisors insist on being present at staff level interviews with auditors)
- Auditors requesting the same information twice or more
- Agencies that delay in providing information to auditors
- Auditors requesting information that is not used
How can auditors best allay the fears of agency staff?
- Conduct an effective entrance conference
- Help the director separate him/herself from their pride/sense of ownership of the agency and be open to ways to improve the agency
- Make their objectivity obvious
How can audit/evaluation demands be fit into the agency's workload?
- Plan data request schedule far in advance
- Understand the limits of agencies' data systems
How should auditors/evaluators prepare before an audit? Should they be "blank slates"?
- [All panelists agreed that auditors should be knowledgeable, not "blank slates"]
- Request information before the formal start of the audit
- Take tours of the agency to understand the complexities of its mission
- Understand the limits of the audit staff's expertise (i.e., know when to contract out audit/evaluation work to industry experts)
- Review auditors' preconceived notions of the agency
How do auditors keep from getting too close/ "going native"?
- Avoid the role of "management consultant"
- Have internal auditor meetings with auditors/supervisors not involved with day-to-day audit work
- Recognize the "communication" is not the same as "agreement"
 2002
Fall Training Conference Notes
|
