Soured dough in Jefferson City

KENNETT, Mo. -- Every time a state official defensively responds to disclosure of a failed or botched program under his jurisdiction, I recall the words of an audit report issued on one program in Jefferson City that went something like this:

"The agency has not properly overseen its contracts. It has not verified that services were performed or funds were spent for intended purposes. It has also failed to properly evaluate whether the expenditure of funds has resulted in the accomplishment of preventing the cycle of dependency."

Anyone experienced in the ongoing milieu of public-service programs will recognize that the criticism could apply to numerous agencies, whether they are located in the state capital or the District of Columbia or the county courthouse or a city hall. Before a mob gathers outside the homes of program administrators, it should be noted that departmental directors in virtually all jurisdictions are named to direct the delivery of services, whatever they might be. The emphasis is on delivering to voters, constituents, special interests or whatever organization or group is the designated recipient of services that government provides.

This emphasis on delivery is unquestionably the reason for the longevity of some programs that continue year after year, regardless of need or merit of public funding. Lost in the effort to deliver is the need for improving the quality of management, which over the years has accounted for far more wasted tax dollars than the myopic goal of simply satisfying constituent demands for the sake of a department director's tenure or the reputation of a chief executive or the furtherance of the fortunes of the political party in power.

For more than a month, this space has been discussing some of the most disappointing summaries of important, vital programs rendered -- sometimes inefficiently and sometimes blatantly wasteful -- to the taxpayers of Missouri. Summaries of audits have oftentimes been so shocking that their findings refute both understanding and logic.

How can a state agency waste hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes millions of them, while carrying out the function of serving citizens?

One explanation is that the review process of an agency's performance is either flawed or non-existent.

Another is that the men and women named to carry out the administration of a single or multiple number of programs are not held responsible for the performance of the programs, just the delivery of them.

Another is that the person ultimately responsible for the overall record of achievement has failed to demand the kind of executive skills required.

I suppose there are other reasons but these seem the principal ones, if only because departmental officials seldom wind up in jail for neglect of duty and more often than not are not even asked to resign. Sometimes the excuses are so patently bogus that John Q. Citizen simply throws up his hands and says to hell with it.

Missouri seems to have had its fair share of error-riddled public programs in both the far and more immediate past.

One that deserves historical recognition is the state's so-called 15-year highway improvement program, launched in the early 1990s and finally abandoned toward the end of the decade. It was so far off the mark that it's a miracle that no one in Jefferson City caught on for years, although those charged with administering it had to know rather early on that it wasn't going to work.

Can you remember any member of the highway commission or top official in the agency resigning as a result of this failed program? I can't, despite the fact those culpable held membership in this elite group of professional engineers and well-placed political party members.

No one in the General Assembly turned in a resignation letter despite this group's responsibility for reviewing and enacting the overall plan and its tax increases that required no approval form voters.

Can you name any state official who stood up to claim responsibility for the expenditure of millions of dollars for unwarranted and undeserved Medicaid medication, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars of public money?

How about the officials who were part of a well-hidden plan to add some 300 mental health employees to the central office staff, without anyone in Jefferson City aware of what was occurring? Readers may remember more than a dozen examples that have been cited in this space over the past month or so, and one is as egregious as any of the others.

Why are they egregious?

Well, first of all, they reveal the careless indifference that occurs all too often when public programs are instituted, reflecting not only the absence of administrative accountability but also the wasting of valuable public money on those who either do not qualify for assistance or by those who reflect the prevailing view that it's only public money and some who believe such dispersal should be treated with less supervision than private capital.

Missouri is experiencing a major revenue shortage as officials attempt to conduct business as usual, with the prevailing warning being sounded that if you didn't like this year's shortfall, just wait until 2003. Federal assistance is in danger of becoming less and less, particularly so for programs that ultimately are the responsibility of the states. No one is going to hear many truthful promises from nervous politicians in the next few years, increasing the pressure on governors and legislators to make every penny count.

The other problem is that cash-strapped programs of the future will be operating under the same rules as those that have been the subjects of investigative audits in the past. If that makes you uncomfortable, welcome to the club. Politicians waste more dough than the rest of us will ever knead to pay our taxes.

Jack Stapleton is the editor of Missouri News & Editorial Service.