Liberal MLAs put financial watchdog on a chain

VICTORIA - A handful of Liberal MLAs have betrayed the public over the appointment of a new auditor general.
The auditor general is one of several independent officers who work for the legislature, not the government. His job is to make sure the government’s financial reporting is accurate and audit its performance on important issues - from finding out what went wrong with the fast ferries to examining the fairness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacare. He reports to the legislature and the public, not cabinet.
It’s an important job, one that has to be free of any political taint.
That’s why the hiring process is clear. The auditor general, appointed for a six-year term, must be unanimously supported by the legislature. The actual hiring decision is made by the public accounts committee, made up of 14 MLAs from both parties. They agree on a candidate which the legislature then supports.
That hasn’t happened this time. And the Liberals’ solution looks like a sneaky move to avoid the requirement for unanimity and impose a candidate of their choice.
The legislation allows the appointment of an acting auditor general without unanimity, a short-term solution if the auditor falls ill or the search is delayed.
The Liberals, with a majority on the committee, have approved their preferred candidate on that basis, with no limit on how long the acting appointment will last or any plans to continue to search for an acceptable candidate.
It looks like an attempt to subvert the law and turn an independent officer into a partisan appointment.
The committee has been looking for a candidate to replace outgoing auditor general Wayne Strelioff for months now. They had narrowed the field to three.
And, based on bits and pieces that have leaked from the search, the two parties split on their first choice for the job.
The Liberals wanted Arne van Iersel, a respected long-time government employee. Van Iersel was the comptroller general in the finance ministry, responsible for making sure the government’s books were accurate. He held that job under the NDP and the Liberals, and most recently has been helping sort out problems in the ministry of children and families. (Liberal John Yap has confirmed the party’s MLAs on the committee wanted him to get the job.)
This situation shouldn’t be a negative reflection on van Iersel, who has an excellent reputation.
The New Democrats reportedly backed a candidate from Ontario, who came with a recommendation from federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser.
You can see how that would make the Liberals nervous. B.C.’s auditors have been effective, but low key - alright, boring - in the way they presented the information. Fraser has taken a much more high-profile approach in her work, highlighting cases like the sponsorship scandal and the gun registry waste. No provincial government would be keen on that kind of publicity.
And despite van Iersel’s fine personal reputation, it’s easy to understand why the New Democrats were concerned about his appointment.
The auditor general has to look critically at the actions and decisions of government and senior public sector workers. Van Iersel would be auditing the work of people who were his peers only months before, and possibly even critiquing his own past decisions. The perception of conflict is huge.
The nature of this appointment is also damaging to Van Iersel’s ability to do the job. He is now tagged as the Liberals’ choice. His reports - no matter how thorough and even-handed - will be seen through that lens.
Worse, he can now be seen as under the Liberals’ thumb. Auditors general are appointed for a fixed six-year term to allow them independence. Van Iersel can be fired anytime the Liberals on the committee choose; his independence is hopeless compromised.
The Liberals on the committee have blundered. They should retreat now and the committee should come up with a compromise candidate both sides can support.
Footnote: How important is independence? The legislation currently allows the appointment of an auditor general for a second six-year term. Strelioff, in his final report, recommends that be changed becaus it could create the appearance that an auditor’s reports are being influenced by a desire to keep the job.