1auditor.JPG

Portland City Auditor Mary Hull Caballero is proposing asking voters to approve charter changes that increase her office's independence.

(Andrew Theen/Staff)

Portland City Auditor Mary Hull Caballero hasn't given the mayor and city commissioners many reasons to love her office. Her auditors have called out the city council for doling out millions in grants without any competitive process. Her Independent Police Review division subpoenaed the mayor to question him about his former police chief's accidental shooting of a friend. And Hull Caballero rapped both the mayor and City Commissioner Steve Novick for violating city rules on reporting meetings with lobbyists.

But that's exactly what voters elected her to do: Watchdog city government for taxpayers. And it's why Hull Caballero is right to press for changing the current structure that puts her budget at the mercy of those she's charged with watchdogging.

http://media.oregonlive.com/opinion_impact/photo/agenda-2013jpg-da8a3522a991b9c6.jpg

Editorial Agenda 2016



Get Oregon centered

Better leadership in education

Make Portland a city that works

Build Oregon prosperity

Protect and expand personal freedom

Get pot right

_______________________________

As The Oregonian/OregonLive's Brad Schmidt reported, Hull Caballero has proposed revising the city's charter to increase her office's independence. Among the sought-after changes: add the Independent Police Review division and office of the ombudsman to the charter as auditor responsibilities, ensuring that only a vote of the people, rather than a council majority, could eliminate the divisions which investigate citizen complaints; vest her with the authority to hire staff and seek outside legal counsel rather than rely on the city's human resources and city attorney's office, both of which report to the mayor; and most critically, give the auditor more control over her budget.

The changes, Hull Caballero told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board, are modeled after the structure of the Secretary of State's office and are meant to help protect the office from "political interference." Consider that the mayor and city commissioners adopt the budget. Technically, they're acting as policymakers in this instance. However, under Portland's weird commission form of government, all five also head up different city bureaus, setting up an inherent disadvantage for offices, such as the auditor's, that has no designated advocate on the council. As Hull Caballero noted, "a dollar for the auditor is one less for parks, police, etc."

It's not just a theoretical conflict. Earlier this year, Hull Caballero was the lone elected official whose office faced a possible 5 percent cut as Portland Mayor Charlie Hales sought to free up money for other purposes. The city's budget office combed through the list of reductions she reluctantly offered up, choosing which line items to recommend and which to reject. And while her office ultimately escaped with a 1 percent reduction, the process sent the message that the accountability functions of the auditor are secondary to the policy goals of the mayor and city commissioners.

Oregonian editorials

reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom.

are Laura Gunderson, John Maher, Helen Jung, Mark Katches and Len Reed.

To respond to this editorial:

Post your comment below, submit a

,

or write a

.

If you have questions about

the opinion section,

contact Laura Gunderson, editorial and commentary editor,

at

or 503-221-8378.

That's not acceptable. Portlanders are poorly served when the mayor and city council can compromise, even unintentionally, the auditor's ability to carry out her responsibilities with inadequate funding. The auditor should have considerably more say in the size and manner in which she can spend her budget and should be able to do her job without fear of retaliation by a commissioner peeved over a critical audit.

Increased autonomy, however, should not translate into a pass from accountability. While the auditor, and any elected official, ultimately answers to voters for the job he or she does, it's unrealistic to expect that voters, unaided, can provide the scrutiny needed to do so. To ensure that there's a watchdog for the watchdog, Hull Caballero is looking at multiple ways for her office to be evaluated by others, including the Secretary of State's office and an independent management firm. In addition, the office already undergoes a professional peer review every three years.

A work session is scheduled for January and Hull Caballero hopes to win city council approval to refer the changes in the city charter to voters in May. While there's plenty of work ahead to nail down the all-important details, city commissioners should signal their support for increasing the auditor's independence. Whether they recognize it or not, ensuring full credibility of the auditor's office only enhances their own.

- The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board