Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects motion to audit Office of Disciplinary Counsel after polarized debate over scope and authority
Summary
A proposal requiring the legislative auditor to perform a one-time performance audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel failed in the House after members debated whether the audit was necessary and whether it set a precedent for auditing privately funded entities.
The House voted down a motion to concur with Senate Bill 14, a bill that would have directed the legislative auditor to perform a one-time performance audit of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).
Representative Mallette, who carried the bill in the House, said the audit would provide “a thorough understanding of each funding source” for ODC and an analysis of budgets, costs and functions over the prior 10 years. He described the audit as an objective, nonpartisan review intended to promote public trust.
Opponents called the measure an unnecessary “fishing expedition.” Representative France said the ODC is independently funded by the State Bar and performs transparent annual reporting; he said the Supreme Court supervises attorney discipline and there are no state funds involved to justify a legislative audit. “This bill is not needed,” France said.
Other speakers raised concerns about confidentiality and precedent. Representative Deming and others warned that a performance audit would likely require auditors to review case-level materials, which could implicate confidential information about complaints that did not result in discipline. Representative Staffman said the legislative auditor told the committee he had never been asked to audit an entity that receives no public funds.
Supporters argued the legislative audit division is capable of handling confidentiality and that the bill would help lawyers who fund ODC understand how assessment dollars are used. Representative Sharp urged oversight of the judiciary and its related entities, arguing that an audit would either clear or uncover problems.
When the House voted on the motion to concur, the clerk recorded 43 ayes and 57 nays; Senate Bill 14 failed to be concurred in.
Why it matters: The vote touches on separation of powers, oversight of judicial regulatory entities, and whether state legislative audit authority should extend to privately funded organizations that are subject to Supreme Court supervision. Opponents warned of constitutional and confidentiality concerns; supporters argued for transparency and public trust.
