Charter commission backs stronger financial reports and performance audits; executive reporting requirement added

The Whatcom County Charter Review Commission voted unanimously to refer two transparency measures to voters on June 11: stronger quarterly financial reporting to support council appropriation decisions and a performance‑audit process to evaluate county programs and identify savings.

Amendment 25, sponsored by Commissioners Joel Pitts‑Jordan and Jennifer Wright, would require the executive branch to provide quarterly reports on cash flow, revenues and expenditures to inform supplemental appropriation decisions by the county council. Pitts‑Jordan said the council must have reliable fiscal data before making supplemental appropriations, otherwise members risk unknowingly creating future deficits.

Amendment 26, on performance audits, drew public support from Elise Garvey of the Association of Local Government Auditors, who told the commission that independent performance audits “play a key role in effective governance and public accountability” and recommended following generally accepted government auditing standards.

The final language the commission approved includes a clause directing the county executive, beginning Jan. 1, 2029 and biannually thereafter, to report back to the council on implementation of approved performance‑audit recommendations — including achieved cost savings and the expected return on investment. The commission adopted that last sentence as a friendly amendment during debate to clarify accountability and tracking of audit outcomes.

Commissioners emphasized the intent was not to create a separate full‑time office but to authorize contracted performance‑audit services and, where appropriate, in‑house capacity managed to generally accepted auditing standards. Sponsor Joel Pitts‑Jordan noted that other counties use a mix of contracted and in‑house audit capacity; Snohomish County was cited as an implementation example.

The motion to send both amendments to the ballot passed 15–0.

Commissioners said they expect the performance audits to identify inefficiencies and long‑term savings; Pitts‑Jordan cited national examples where performance auditing returned multiple dollars for each dollar invested. The charter change would require follow‑up reporting so voters and the council could track whether recommendations were implemented and savings realized.