Substance lacking in state VA audit

THERE has been a drumbeat this year for more auditing of state agencies to ensure taxpayers’ dollars aren’t squandered. A recent audit of the Oklahoma Department of Veteran Affairs undermines that idea. Rather than a fact-based report focused on finances and legal compliance, the audit reads like a collection of anonymous comments gleaned from social media and admits some reported material is based on nothing more than “rumors.”

One wonders: What exactly are policymakers supposed to do with this?

The report, prepared by the office of the state auditor, covers July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017, and immediately concedes the audit was not “conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards” and therefore does “not express an opinion on the account balances or financial statements of the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs …”

Instead, the report focuses on the subjective comments of a sliver of anonymous employees made in surveys. The report claims a “culture of fear and intimidation” exists at the agency and employees “actively fear for their jobs and report experiencing dictatorial and aggressive leadership.” If so, one would think successful wrongful termination lawsuits would be plentiful. None is cited.

The audit claims agency employees believe “funds are being removed from veteran care” to improperly expand the central administrative office. If so, one would expect financial records to reflect that, but the report doesn’t cite conclusive data verifying this contention.

The audit cites “concerns that the level of care” provided to veterans “is declining,” but those complaints are tied in part to changes such as outsourcing laboratory services and even standardization of menus. Standardization and outsourcing are routinely used in private business to lower expenses without harming service quality. Is it really bad that a government agency might follow the private sector’s lead on efficiency? On these points, the audit mostly indicates some government employees are resistant to change.

Moreover, the audit concedes “the veterans centers are licensed as long-term care facilities” and “these changes do not appear to violate applicable regulations.” That the veterans’ centers are heavily regulated and have no compliance problems undermines claims that service has declined to unacceptable levels.

The audit relies heavily on hearsay, even when independent verification appears easy to obtain. For example, the report notes a section of the center in Talihina, in southeastern Oklahoma, was closed due to mold in a ventilation system that “according to staff members” also feeds other parts of the building still in use. A simple review of facility blueprints should indicate whether this claim is true, but there’s no reference to such independent verification.

A one-sentence summary of the audit might read as follows: Some ODVA employees don’t like their bosses. That may or may not indicate serious administrative problems — although the audit concedes “some of these allegations could be an issue of perception.” But without detailed, factual information that undergirds employees’ subjective feelings, the report essentially amounts to a “dog bites mailman” story with little actionable material for policymakers.