Should the offices of Comptroller and Treasurer be combined?
Earlier today I posted this Daily Herald editorial in the Morning Shorts:
For example, why is it essential to have both a state comptroller and state treasurer? It's not. The duties of these offices are so closely aligned that the offices could be combined. The treasurer invests the state money that comes in and the comptroller signs the checks for the money that goes out.
If the offices were merged, it could save taxpayers up to $12 million annually. And many millions more would doubtlessly be saved over time from improved efficiency in the delivery of fiscal services.
This is not a revolutionary thought. The idea of merging these offices has been around a long time. It has been supported by the current state comptroller, Dan Hynes, and was also backed by former state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka.
[...]
Those who oppose the consolidation of the treasurer and comptroller argue that this would somehow weaken accountability, that the state needs both agencies to serve as fiscal watchdogs. Not so. The real reason for wanting the keep the offices intact is to maintain a source of patronage.
* As the editorial mentions this isn't a particularly new argument. It's been around for a while, and has bubbled back up to the surface amidst talk over a con-con.
The post has already sparked some debate. Some commenters have sided with the editorial, but others have cited reasons for keeping the offices separate:
Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 18, 08 @ 9:04 am
Weren’t the offices of comptroller and treasurer separated because of the scandal involving State Auditor Orville Hodge, back in the 1950s? I think the idea at the time was that it was not good to have the state’s money completely in the hands of one person. Would that argument hold water today?
John Bambenek - Wednesday, Jun 18, 08 @ 10:05 am
Having the person who receives money be a seperate person than the one who spends money has some advantage, namely its a little harder to “hide” revenue to skim off the top when another office wants all it can get to pay the bills. Generally businesses tend to, in some degree, seperate accounts receivable and accounts payable.
* Since this seems to be a fairly hot topic I want to keep the conversation going. What do you think?
1 comments:
The proposal isn't to combine both offices into a job for one only person with complete control, so John and Anon's objections are not problems. AR and AP can easily be separate functions within the office with accountability and oversight, like most business does.
The fear of theft is always a concern with Illinois politicians and isn't lessened or made worse by this proposal. Now, one could hide the amount coming in, the other the amount going out, and both taking a cut for themselves. If anything, we would reduce the number of potential political crooks by combining offices.
And how many people think for one minute Madigan and Jones would allow even one penny to fall out of their control for handouts to their members? There really is no increased risk by combining the offices. Just fewer patronage jobs and $10 million pensions.
Post a Comment