Auditor expresses need for government accountability

MT. PLEASANT — Iowa Auditor Rob Sand passionately spoke about his desire for accountability in government during his visit to Mt. Pleasant’s Noon Rotary, Wednesday.

After inviting Rotarians to speak up with any questions or comments they may have, Auditor Sand discussed his views on recent settlements with the University of Iowa Athletics Department.

“The way this stuff works is if somebody sues the state of Iowa because somebody employed by the state of Iowa did wrong, anytime there's a settlement, it comes through the State Appeal Board by law, that's your state auditor, your state treasurer, and the director of the Department of Management,” Sand explained.

According to Sand, prior to his election in 2018, this board often acted as a “rubber stamp” which just passed these cases along.

“Now, I have been on the losing end of four to one votes, but I'm trying to get more accountability in there, because now, there have been four settlements where I've said, ‘Hold on a second,’” Sand said.

“This is the fourth discrimination case while Gary Barta has been head of the athletic department, all discrimination cases under the athletic department have been while he's been there,” he said. “Can anyone in this room imagine someone in the private sector keeping their job after discrimination?”

“At a certain point, I think we would say to someone, ‘hey, look, you're really good at this, and you're really good at that, but you don't seem to be getting this whole don't discriminate against the people thing, and it's costing us a lot,’” Sand said. “’So, we wish you well and it’s time to move on.’”

“I just think four strikes is too many,” he said. “Three is generally the rule. Three and you're out. And for four to even still be standing at the plate, I don't know what we're doing.”

While Sand agrees that to some extent taxpayers are responsible for the people they employ, he doesn’t understand why the individuals with repeat offenses are not held accountable.

Sand explained how some of this accountability would work in reference to sexual harassment settlements which he voted against.

According to Sand, sometimes when cases hit a certain legal burden “we should be going after the person who did the harassment to make them repay taxpayers.”

“It’s Simple,” he said. “You make the target of the harassment whole, and then you go after the person who did it to make their life miserable until taxpayers are made whole.”

“You have to have accountability. How do you get anything to change if you don't have accountability?” Sand asked.

In connection with his comments on accountability, Auditor Sand addressed Senate File 478 which passed the state Senate March 7 with 33 yeas and 16 nays.

“It lets government agencies decide what documents the auditor can look at,” Sand explained.

“Seriously?” one Rotarian said incredulously.

“Thank you,” Sand responded. “Seriously, I’m not joking.”

“Here's how here's how it would work,” Sand explained. “…So they make this list of things, some of which have to do with personal identifying information, many of which have nothing to do with protecting people's privacy.”

“They say you can't have any of these records unless the person you're auditing agrees that they're relevant to the audit,” he said.

“…We already follow HIPAA. We already follow laws for privacy, for educational records,” Sand said. “We already follow every privacy law. There's lots of privacy laws. When we look at something that might have identifying information on it, which we have to, to do audits, sometimes we actually take on the same penalties that the keeper of the record would have if we violate any privacy, there is no instance of our office having violated privacy. There is no problem with privacy in the state auditor's office.”

According to Auditor Sand, the auditor’s office currently has the right to a review from the courts when an entity will not provide records.

“The courts are independent,” he said. “This bill means they can make an independent ruling instead of allowing us to have judicial review, which is old, as old as America, right?”

“They instead have an arbitration system, and it's a three-person arbitration panel,” Sand said. “It's us [the auditor’s office], the agency who told us we couldn't have the record, who presumably is under the employment of the governor, and someone the governor picks.”

“The question is, who decides what's relevant?” Sand asked the Rotarians. “If the person getting audited decides what's relevant, they're going to rule all of. It is out of balance.”

“It's the biggest pro corruption bill to ever come out of the Iowa Senate,” Sand said. “I cannot imagine a bigger green light for fraud.”

Comments: AnnaMarie.Ward@southeastiowaunion.com