For the first time in recent memory, a new Audit Review and Oversight Committee has been created. House Speaker Frank Chopp created the panel in order to tackle large systems issues in how government operates. The committee, chaired by the indefatigable Rep. Mark Miloscia (D-Federal Way), shows, in my view, Chopp’s belief in government efficiency during these extremely difficult financial times.

Every few years the issue of government efficiency hits the radio talk shows for an additional 15 minutes of fame. Anytime a program is discovered to have wasted money or, according to the papers, fails to deliver value, the issue of waste, fraud and abuse resurfaces. It never actually fades from public conscientiousness. Given the need for transparency, that’s a good thing.

This step, to look deeper and more strategically at how government structurally operates, is vitally important to rejuvenate the Legislature’s larger oversight role. Both public and private sector issues need the light of public understanding and this panel can be a vehicle.

Professionally I have had the opportunity and burden to serve on a number of boards of directors of corporations. There is a dramatic, even surreal difference between oversight in the public and private sectors. While many examples exist of bad governance by corporations, of course, at least there is little question of the obligation itself. Unfortunately many in government don’t take this role seriously.

One of my biggest concerns in entering the public sector has been the lack of detailed financial oversight by the Legislature of state agencies’ workplans, employees and budgets. We rarely seem to aggressively look at the ‘base’ budget of an agency or how state employees spend their actual time, focusing more on the incremental requests for new programs. When it comes time to reduce spending, we generally allow the agency themselves to make the cuts across the board instead of directing them in a particular direction. Yet they have an inherent and understandable interest in job protection. Thus, their chosen cuts disproportionately impact programs, services, contracts and any other items outside of state employees. That is not inherently good or bad, of course, but it is central to how reductions are made. We should be more transparent about that.

Equally important, this blanket approach is simply not a strategy one generally finds in the private sector.

Therefore, I applaud this move by Chopp and feel it sets the stage for a much deeper analysis of state programs, more rigorous and data-driven accountability. State Auditor Brian Sonntag often looks at specific projects but is not charged with analyzing the larger systemic issues. That is appropriately the obligation of the Legislature, and this is the best opportunity for that systems approach.

The Milsocia committee, which has subpoena power, is developing its workplan loosely based upon Congressional oversight. My hope is that the panel will explore with courageous honesty the larger systems issues and not merely questions of spending tax dollars in relatively small amounts.

Here are some brief, modest suggestions for looking at systems issues.

How efficient and effective are the state’s workforce development programs? We spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars on workforce development through untold panels, agencies and governing bodies at the local, state and federal levels. Do they work? Are the workforce needs of our citizen being met or are people going untrained despite substantial resources?

Another example: Are our colleges and universities actually educating more people to higher levels? This is our state’s official higher education policy but we don’t seem to challenge our two and four year institutions directly to measure their progress against that specific goal. Why?

Another example: What are local, county and state governments doing to coordinate their regulatory schemes for business? Are we taking a strategic approach to help small business—our largest employer—deal with different levels of government regulation, taxation, rules and obligations? Is this a real or perceived problem and how do we know what to do about it?

Another example: How did the mortgage crisis happen with state regulated firms? Did the state fail to oversee the industry and, if so, how?

Another example: Has the state created a model where we analyze the true externalities of environmental policies from sprawl to density to runoff and more?

Another example: Does the state have a technology strategy that makes sense or have we created a model where we pay value-based prices for commodity services widely available through the private sector? Are we using privacy and security as rationalizations to build expensive, proprietary new systems without examining the issue in depth technically? Who is accountable for technology spending?

Another example: How did the Legislature approve the $180 million state data center without a full scale, thorough business plan from the state agency that did not explore alternatives in any depth? Why has the state spent literally hundreds of millions on computer programs only to see many of them cancelled, delayed or otherwise poorly managed? Does the current governance structure hide accountability and, if so, how can we change it?

Another example: Is the state consistent in its treatment of health care policies—including payment levels—among various groups including teachers, state employees and others? What is the real driver of health care services, deals, rates and offerings from the state?

Another example: What are the most effective and proven policies and strategies in the nation—that our state has not chosen to embrace—to increase the middle class, wages and buying power? Why hasn’t our state done so?

Another example: Is Washington doing all we can to be the number one state in the nation in winning competitive grant dollars from the federal government? Or are we focusing more on generic block grant allocations instead of the competitive arena?

The examples go on and on.

My hope is that the Audit Review and Oversight Committee embraces the opportunity to tackle bold policy questions and tough issues. I hope the panel does not fear causing disequilibrium within the public and private sectors in seeking transparency for the public, better use of tax dollars, more accountability for real results. Outputs and outcomes instead of inputs and process. Easy to say, tough to accomplish. But crucial to try over and over and over again. We can’t give up.

My hope is that the committee will listen well to state employees on the front lines. While many agencies have the proverbial ‘suggestion’ boxes, I have yet to see an agency director welcome folks from the front lines to send their ideas directly to legislators. They want to vet the ideas (with some justification I guess…) but that hardly seems consistent with transparency. As a result, we in the Legislature see the washed, folded and dried ideas, not the raw, radical or bold. Not much seems to change through this avenue. I continue to have a number of whistle blowers from inside government bring technology related issues to my attention. It pains me to see their fear of speaking out against what they believe are bad decisions that aren’t justified technically or financially.

Of course, we have to believe that we can improve how government works and spend money without it being a witch hunt or a media circus. We can roll up our sleeves and question old programs without blaming the institutional bureaucracy for old policies. We can listen and learn about how to restructure programs without it being so loaded about job A and job B. We can do so much better.

Harry Truman was the lead senator to tackle the terribly uncomfortable issue of corruption and profiteering among industrial giants during World War I. As a veteran he had the moral credibility to raise the issue and defend the public’s right to know. Today—as tax dollars become tighter and our need for systems strategies more crucial then ever—we need that same courageous honesty here at home, regardless of where it leads us.

I once wrote on Facebook: We need Democrats to focus more on government efficiency and Republicans to focus more on equity for people. That post received a ton of responses from all sides.

This is a project where we can do both.

Yes we can.