Governmental Accountability to the Taxpayer
Telling People Exactly Where their Money Goes

Imagine a child, sent to the grocery store to pick up a few things, and urged to “bring back the change.” Our young trustee would stand a bit taller with this first true mandate – effect a successful outcome, provide proper accountability and return with a reasonable surplus. It is easy to see, from early childhood, we easily grasp the principle of governmental accountability, i.e., take the money, accomplish the task in a reasonable fashion, and bring home change.
 
One quick look at our paycheck withholdings reminds us, as members of a large and complex society, we pay a hefty price to maintain our government entrusted programs. Therefore, we naturally ask relevant questions such as, “Are these programs accomplishing truly important tasks?” and “Are the government officials demonstrating enough restraint and efficiency to produce a surplus?”

The American public is mistrusting of government, especially in the area of spending. As a group, we fear (1) they are all crooks out to line their own pockets, (2) they pander to special interest groups for votes, (3) they are wasteful and inefficient, and (4) they pour valuable resources into ineffective programs, i.e., schools failing to educate our children to a proper standard. It is to these four concerns that government must speak if the public is to feel there has been a true and full accounting.

The American Accounting Association's (AAA) Committee on Concepts of Accounting Applicable to the Public Sector of 1970 determined that accountability falls into four categories:

• Financial resources

• Faithful compliance or adherence to legal requirements and administrative policies

• Efficiency and economy in operations

• The results of government programs and activities, as reflected in accomplishments, benefits, and effectiveness

Notice that these four categories correspond very closely to our four biggest concerns stated above. Providing a full accounting, touching these (AAA) recommended areas, would go a long way toward easing public concerns.

Let us take them one at a time…

Financial resources:
This addresses the public’s first fear, “They’re all crooks.” A proper financial accounting assures the citizenry that every cent is exactly where it should be and demonstrates the true, current financial condition of the program.

Faithful compliance or adherence to legal requirements and administrative policies:
This addresses the public’s second fear, “They pander to special interest groups for votes” as well as any other illegal practice. Was the spending within the approved budgetary allowances, in compliance with contractual requirements, etc.?

Efficiency and economy in operations:
This addresses the public’s third fear, “They’re wasteful and inefficient.” For example, an audit revealed that the Defense Department (1997-2003) purchased and left unused, $100 million in commercial airline tickets (approx. 270,000 tickets). They never even bothered to get refunds for fully refundable tickets. People, daily challenged to greater efficiency in their homes, schoolwork, and jobs, have a right to expect the same from government.

The results of government programs and activities, as reflected in accomplishments, benefits, and effectiveness:
This addresses the public’s fourth fear, “They pour valuable resources into ineffective programs.” This area of accountability has garnered much interest of late. It is called, among other things, “performance auditing.” Among the techniques used for this evaluation are citizen surveys, which help measure not only the actual effectiveness of a program, but also how the citizenry perceived the program.

Through accountability, the public is brought to the table, choosing or rejecting programs and/or leaders who are not worth their hard-earned money.