INAUDIBLE ABOUT AUDITS: STATE SHOULD TAKE NOTICE

Every candidate running for lieutenant governor in the past 20 years has promised voters he or she would serve as the common man's ombudsman, his representative within the Capitol chambers. Few seldom even approach the honorable calling of looking after the interests of us common folk, but the promise is revived every four years all the same.

The fact is most lieutenant governors aren't effective at looking into the state bureaucracy's behavior because they lack the constitutional powers to assume the duties of a bona fide ombudsman. Which helps explains one of the reasons every candidate for the office seems motivated to expand the paucity of powers of the job: there just isn't much the second ranking executive officer in state government can or is allowed to do.

Although it is often overlooked, the one constitutional office in central government that can effectively look out for citizen interests is that of state auditor, a position that barely rates a heart flutter among aspiring politicians and one that is accorded about the same political recognition as a water works superintendent.

In terms of real power, as well as potential for public service, the auditor's job ranks just below that of governor. Until a decade and a half ago, the office commanded little respect because of the people who occupied it. For the most part, auditors were either politicians who were merely keeping the seat warm until they could move on to greater things (Forrest Smith, Kit Bond, John Ashcroft) or were political hacks who were just lucky to have the ~job rather than face the alternative of real work. (A respect for the dead will keep these names from public print.)

Then something incredible happened. A Democrat named George Lehr appeared on the scene, pointing out a fact that had been obvious all along: the state auditor ought to be an auditor in the real sense of the word. Moreover, he should be a qualified auditor, as in certified public accountant, and he ought to pursue not only errors in musty bookkeeping ledgers but uncover practices harmful to the public interest.

In their wisdom, Missourians not only heard Lehr's words, they elected him, and since 1974 the auditor has been not only a CPA but something of a disciple of this founding father of responsibility in government. It has been a most fortuitous tradition that has been maintained right up to and including this very moment.

Happily, there has been something in the demeanor of post-Lehr auditors that has continued and fostered his superb ability to get under the skin of virtually every politician and bureaucrat in Cole County.

Lehr so angered some in his party that they accused him of being a Republican, a charge never formally brought against him because the public quickly learned to appreciate his abilities and dedication. One of his Republican successors, Jim Antonio, drove then Governor Kit Bond to distraction, and there was enough paranoia generated among the executive staff to accuse Antonio of party treason.

The incumbent, Margaret Kelly, has produced similar, but more vocally restrained, reactions from John Ashcroft and most of his department heads. And Mrs. Kelly, bless her traditional proclivity, has sent many a Democratic legislator through the Capitol dome. She did so only the other day when she announced, after intensive grilling from a House subcommittee, that she intended to audit the fiscal habits of the lower chamber. This produced predictable cries of anguish from legislators, few of whom are tolerant of those who can also play their brand of political hard ball.

All of this would have a happy ending if and this is where the conjunction unhappily leads us Missourians paid more attention to the abuses found by the auditor and his or her staff. Unfortunately most audit reports go unread, not only by department heads whose agencies are being examined but also even by conscientious legislators who really are interested in the public's welfare. One example will be sufficient.

Earlier this month, the auditor's office released its two-year review of the State Lottery Commission. The findings rated a two-paragraph story in most papers and got little or no mention in the electronic media. The audit found all kinds of problems, from lack of fiscal controls (the agency has no internal auditor) to sloppy management (someone lost 54 lottery signs costing $40,500). The audit also found agency waivers of performance bonds in the purchase of $32 million in supplies; it uncovered at least one case of nepotism; inadequate records; inadequate insurance; inadequate security; and an earlier audit discovered that one employee had six automobile accidents in just two years. There was more, much more.

Missourians have a right to ask why so little attention is given these audits and, as importantly, why so little response is given to them by both the executive and legislative branches of government. Maybe we ought to empower the lieutenant governor to correct audit-discovered abuses and make that office a real and legitimate ombudsman of the taxpayers.

Naw, it'll never work ... it's too logical.