State auditor

The mode of selecting the state auditor varies among the many states and territories. In 24 states, the state auditor is a constitutional officer elected by the voters or the state legislature for specified terms of office. For example, state auditors in California, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington are elected by the voters. Maine and Tennessee are the only states where the state auditor is elected by the legislature. In the remaining states, the state auditor is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the governor or the relevant state legislature.[2] In those states where the state auditor is appointed by the governor, the appointment is always subject to either legislative nomination or confirmation.[3]

Several states have both an elected auditor serving alongside another auditor that is appointed by and reports exclusively to the legislature. Government auditing arrangements in Minnesota, Utah, and Washington reflect this model. Under such circumstances, the respective jurisdictions of the aforementioned officials is such so that their responsibilities complement one another. In the case of Washington for instance, the state auditor conducts independent audits and investigations of the fiscal condition of local governments and state agencies alike, while the legislative auditor evaluates state agency financial management and performance in support of the legislature's oversight functions.[4][5] This division of government auditing responsibility is in keeping with two core principles of state and local government auditing in the United States:

1. A state auditor elected by the people is functionally independent from all other public officials and is therefore duly empowered to superintend and verify the condition of public accounts, funds, and resources without fear of reprisal. Barring other constitutional remedies, only the voters can remove and replace an elected state auditor. This institutional independence combats corruption and promotes government accountability directly to the electorate in the spirit of Jacksonian democracy.[6]
2. A legislative auditor subject to the direction and supervision of the state legislature ensures that the legislature, which appropriates funds and establishes program goals in public policy, will ultimately review program expenditures and results. Thus, state government is accountable to the people through their elected representatives.[7]

Supervising public finances and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration are the primary business of America's state auditors. However, distinctions exist in their functions. Generally speaking, external auditors examine public accounts in order to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of public funds and resources. These audits may be concerned with rendering an opinion on the basic financial statements of governmental entities, verifying regulatory compliance, assessing the strength and design of internal controls, or evaluating program performance. External auditors operate outside of the statewide accounting and financial reporting framework and do not report to executive branch administrators, meaning they have the relevant independence to objectively verify the condition of public finances. This independence, required by Government Auditing Standards, is guaranteed by either direct election of the voters or by manner of legislative appointment.

While similar, inspectors general are not external auditors. Quite to the contrary, inspectors general operate within the entities that they serve. They cannot independently audit governmental financial statements since they report to the very public administrators that prepare them. Instead, inspectors general serve as an objective assurance and consulting activity to either the duly elected governor or individual state agencies, with a remit specifically tailored to investigating corruption within public office and recommending more efficient business practices in the delivery of public services. For the purpose of brevity, this article focuses only on those inspectors general with a mandate encompassing the whole of state government as opposed to individual state agencies.

Meanwhile, governmental accounting is the province of two different types of accountants – bookkeepers and financial controllers. Once the norm in the United States, bookkeepers are now few in number. Bookkeepers are independently elected constitutional officers whose principal duty is to scrutinize, control, and record the disbursement of public funds paid out of the state treasury. All bookkeepers preaudit claims by and against the state, issue warrants on the treasury in payment of claims approved, administer payroll to state employees, and keep a record of fund balances. Other duties may be assigned to bookkeepers by law, such as the administration of unclaimed property, securities and insurance regulation, or the auditing of local government finances. Meanwhile, financial controllers exist to account for a given state’s financial condition. In these respects, financial controllers are charged with operating the statewide accounting system, approving or processing financial transactions, prescribing and enforcing internal controls, and preparing financial reports, among other related responsibilities. The vast majority of state government accountants are financial controllers; in those states lacking bookkeepers, the responsibilities of that office are instead performed by the pertinent financial controller.

Public organizational theory and state law do not always clearly distinguish the functions of America's state auditors based on their official titles.[2] In fact, the elected financial controllers in Arkansas, Indiana, South Dakota, and Wyoming are designated as "state auditor. Meanwhile, New Jersey's inspector general is named the "state comptroller" and Tennessee's external auditor is constitutionally the "comptroller of the treasury". This etymological discrepancy is the result of the government accounting profession evolving over the course of American history and provides, in part, for many variations on the conceptual models. Some state auditors perform functions altogether unrelated to public-sector accounting or auditing. Of note, New York combines the normally disparate functions of government accounting and government auditing into its elected state comptroller, with the incumbent also managing public pensions and investing state funds. No other state or territory consolidates so much financial power into a single state auditor.

On the other hand, some states constrain the authority of their auditors to specific functions. For example, the bulk of the Alabama state auditor's responsibilities entail inventorying state personal property, with only a limited role for financial audits of the state treasurer's and state comptroller's accounts. South Dakota's state auditor is broadly responsible for preauditing state agency claims and vouchers, issuing warrants on the state treasurer to pay funds out of the treasury, and administering payroll. However, no other functional responsibilities within the government machinery applicable to financial controllership have been assigned to the South Dakota state auditor. Rather, a separate state agency under the direction of the governor maintains the state accounting system, develops and maintains internal controls, and preparing financial reports, in addition to preparing and administering the state budget. Montana's state auditor does not even audit public funds or maintain fiscal control over the state treasury in the traditional sense. Rather, the auditorregulates Montana's securities and insurance industries.

For the majority of states where the state auditor audits public accounts, their scope of authority encompasses all state agencies. In a plurality of these same states, the auditor's jurisdiction also extends to local governments.[2] Government auditing arrangements are unique in Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, and West Virginia however with respect to the fact that their respective state auditors primarily or exclusively audit local governments. In the case of the Illinois comptroller and West Virginia state auditor, these elected state auditors also serve as financial controllers of state agencies. To the contrary, New Jersey's state comptroller functions as an inspector general for the executive branch of state government and is a member of the governor's cabinet.[8][9] Minnesota is particularly unique. In that state, the state auditor, who is elected, is the only state auditor in the United States to broadly supervise and audit the fiscal concerns of local governments. In fact, nearly 5,000 local governments which altogether spend some $40 billion annually come under the state auditor's purview.[10] With that said, the state auditor's authority over state agencies extends only to the statewide single audit of federal funds spent by state agencies and their subrecipients. A separate legislative auditor appointed by and reporting to the state legislature is responsible for audits and evaluations of state agency financial management and performance.[11]

As independently chosen external auditors, financial controllers and inspectors general, America's state auditors exist to safeguard public finances from misappropriation and maladministration. In short, their work combats corruption and keeps government accountable for the efficient and effective use of tax dollars. Nevertheless, their accounting and auditing activities are frequently put to use for connected purposes. In Colorado for instance, the state auditor reports on the effectiveness of health exchanges and marijuana legalization. Meanwhile, California's state auditor is involved in the redistricting process.