Q: What’s the most significant improvement you plan to make in the office?

A: First –making sure no taxpayer wonders whether anyone in government is watching out for them; second, making sure no taxpayer wonders whether a dollar they give to state government will be a dollar well spent; and third, making sure no one who relies upon any government service worries whether that service will be compromised by a failing bureaucracy or a dishonest vendor stealing from the system. This means ensuring that tax dollars are being spent effectively and efficiently as well as legally.

Expanding the use of performance audits and focusing scrutiny on the money expended via state contracts for services, especially in the health and human services areas, provide exciting opportunities to help government work smarter and deliver better government, Through these audits, I will identify poor service delivery, inefficient administration, failures in oversight, improper spending, and excessive bureaucracy, I will recommend steps to be taken to remedy these problems and aid agencies in realizing these improvements.

As a legislator and as a cabinet secretary I have demonstrated a commitment to improving taxpayer value and customer service through my reforms of agency operations, establishment of performance goals, and institution of accountability measures and mechanisms. I intend to bring the same fierce determination to making government work to the job of State Auditor.

Q: What was the most impressive audit of Joe DeNucci’s career?

A: The MassHealth (Medicaid) audit of 2005 and the School Building Assistance Program audit of 2004 were among his most important audits, in that they laid bare inadequate oversight mechanisms in both programs which invited wasteful spending and abuse, and led to structural changes in governmental operations.

MassHealth alone then accounted for approximately 30% of the state budget and was doing a poor job of monitoring its expenditures. The audit produced reforms but also suggests that the program needs diligence on an on-going basis, keeping up with new technologies to identify suspicious patterns in services and billing, and working with other agencies serving low-income and elderly residents to prevent fraud and contain costs.

The school building program is the largest publicly funded capital construction program in the state. The report led to a professionalization of the program, with new transparency and accountability mechanisms. Both reports provide apt examples of how the state audit process can do more than simply verify income and expenditures amounts, but can also act as a catalyst to change the structure of government and deliver real taxpayer value.

Q: What part of government or what agency are you looking forward to auditing the most?

A: Rising expenditures for state employees and retiree health insurance and Medicaid (now MassHealth) were identified two decades ago as impending “budget busters.” Since then, these costs have continued to escalate, and the health insurance access programs of the Health Care Connector have added to the size of the bureaucracy and the budget. These costs centers are ripe for aggressive inquiry by the next State Auditor.

For small employers, individual consumers, health care providers and state administrators alike, the array of programs and requirements is vast in scope and bewildering in detail. Administrative simplification is an imperative- for small businesses, consumers, health care providers, insurers, and state administrators. Paying for performance is a concept we need to institute and apply in our relationships with all vendors and providers. Putting a focus on medical outcomes as part of the payment process will lead to better provider practices and lower insurance costs, and will carry over to private insurer practices, providing health care system-wide benefits.

Q: What plans do you have to integrate new technology into the work of the auditor’s office?

A: In recent years, the Office of the State Auditor has acquired new, helpful tools for its internal reviews. I will use these tools to increase the efficiency of the audit process itself. Agencies collect and report information through Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Technology reduces the need for costly and time consuming field audits and still allows audit to be conducted according to Government Audit Standards (GAS).

Another use for technology is to facilitate public interactions with the Office. On my campaign website, I have launched an “Online Hotline” feature, which is the precursor of a more sophisticated and confidential tool I intend to use as State Auditor so that the public may also help target audit opportunities across state government and among service vendors. Further, I will use it to enhance the public’s understanding of the audit process and the results of the audit findings. In short, I will use technology to enable the public- taxpayers and consumers- the opportunity to identify where agencies are failing to deliver, where they are missing the mark and then to understand how state audits will set them right.

Q: State officials say they’ve taken steps to reform state government and weed out waste and abuse. How much wasteful spending do you believe remains in the state budget?

A: McKinsey & Co. estimates that in federal discretionary spending programs productivity increases of 5-15% are possible through performance improvements. While we cannot automatically assume those numbers apply in Massachusetts, the need to assess government’s activities and outcomes is constant. Simply adhering to past practices may fail to deliver taxpayer value and customer service- and thus be wasteful. One small and simple illustration comes from the Director of Unemployment Assistance. Mailing benefit checks to recipients was legal and it got the job done, but offering direct deposit saved $ 3 million annually. When the change is made to debit cards, the cost savings and customer convenience will be even greater.

Wasteful spending will occur whenever and wherever agencies fail to set performance goals, measure outcomes, ask questions which challenge the status quo, seek out best practices and try new methods. A State Auditor who understands the dynamics of large bureaucracies and has been an agent for change is your best bet for identifying and fixing wasteful spending.

Q:What do you think about the problems that have come out recently regarding the state system of business tax incentives?

A: Do these tax incentives invite abuse by businesses and bureaucrats? Absolutely – just like every other part of state government. Business subsidies need, deserve, and demand proper oversight if they are to be anything but handouts.

Toward this end, I would require a thorough review of every such subsidy program, because tax subsidies are state expenditures just like any other. All subsidy programs should have periodic reporting requirements, objective criteria for evaluating their success, and sunset provisions that force the legislature to re-enact based on these evaluations. Massachusetts should enforce the “clawback” provisions that were added to these subsidies, mandating that companies pay back any state assistance they receive if they fail to meet their targets for job creation.

As former Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development, I know all too well the seriousness of Massachusetts’ employment situation. The unvarnished truth is that we do need more jobs, and sooner rather than later. But the impulse to create good jobs cannot blind us to the “law of unintended consequences.” We need aggressive oversight and transparency to ensure that the people of Massachusetts reap the benefits of such efforts rather than the embarrassment of their failure.

Q: “Transparency” seems to be the buzzword of this campaign – what does it mean to you?

Transparency is particularly important because problems don’t always stem simply from fraud or abuse, or from individuals or organizations deliberately gaming the system. Sadly, problems occur because of ignorance or a failure to be aware of all of the component parts that made up a governmental entity.

I ran into just such a problem when I was a State Representative. I inadvertently violated a part of the States ethics law, and paid a fine to make up for my error. Of course, this wasn’t a case of anything criminal, I simply violated a rule. The Commission found no evidence that anything improper had occurred because of my violation (see here). Still, my mistake cost me financially, as well the embarrassment of having to publicly acknowledge my error.

Similar inadvertent errors and mistakes of judgment happen in all of state government. Inefficient practices, duplicated work, and inadequate use of technology may result from simple ignorance, but we pay for them. We need to make every taxpayer dollar go as far as possible, and that means providing as much good information as we can about how best to get the job done. I believe maximizing transparency minimizes the possibility of errors, and decreases the potential for mistakes like mine.

As Auditor I’m committed to aggressively insuring that transparency is the watchword of a Bump Administration.