Smith: How can we gain support for an inspector general?

State inspectors general often play crucial roles in ensuring transparency, accountability and integrity in government operations, and federal funding can significantly contribute to their effectiveness and capacity to fulfill their mandate.”

Cynthia Smith is a founding member of the Delaware Coalition for Open Government.

Our organization, the Delaware Coalition for Open Government, took years to come to this point, appearing both in person and virtually. We have been patiently waiting for the opportunity to be heard and to discuss the inspector general bill, Senate Bill 21. Our board members and fellow advocates will be discussing the need for an inspector general. I am hoping to address the importance of bipartisan support, potential challenges and concerns, and to effectively address solutions to some of the potential objections.

Bipartisan support for a state inspector general is often seen as a positive indication of accountability and transparency in government. When members of both political parties endorse the establishment or appointment of an inspector general, it suggests a shared commitment to oversight and ensuring that government agencies operate efficiently and ethically.

Having bipartisan support can enhance the credibility of the inspector general’s office and its investigations. It can also help prevent accusations of partisanship or bias in the inspector general’s findings and recommendations.

In many cases, bipartisan support for a state inspector general reflects a recognition among lawmakers that effective oversight mechanisms are essential for maintaining public trust in government institutions. It demonstrates a willingness to set aside partisan differences in the interest of promoting good governance and upholding the rule of law.

A lack of bipartisan support for the inspector general can stem from various factors, including political polarization, differing interpretations of the role of the inspector general and suspicions about his or her independence and impartiality.

In many cases, partisan interests may overshadow the objective assessment of an inspector general’s findings or recommendations. This can hinder the effectiveness of oversight and accountability mechanisms, ultimately undermining public trust in the integrity of government institutions. Efforts to promote bipartisanship and emphasize the importance of nonpartisan oversight can help mitigate these challenges and ensure that inspector general offices fulfill their critical role in promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

Leadership driven by loudness can create a contentious and divisive atmosphere. Instead of fostering collaboration and unity, it may lead to resentment and conflict among legislators who feel their voices are not being heard.

State inspectors general, tasked with oversight and investigation of governmental operations in their respective states, often rely on federal funding to support their activities. However, the availability and amount of federal funding can vary based on several factors, including the priorities of the federal government, legislative appropriations and specific grant programs.

State inspector generals may be eligible to receive federal funding through various avenues:

• Federal grants — The federal government allocates funds to states through grant programs aimed at supporting oversight and accountability efforts. Inspectors general may apply for grants specifically designated for enhancing government transparency, integrity and efficiency.
• Federal assistance programs — Some federal agencies provide financial assistance to states for specific purposes, such as combating fraud, waste and abuse in government programs. Inspectors general may collaborate with federal agencies to access funding for joint initiatives or projects.
• Intergovernmental agreements — States may enter into agreements with federal agencies to receive funding for inspector general functions, especially in areas where federal and state interests intersect, such as health care, education or transportation.
• Federal mandates — Federal legislation or regulatory requirements may necessitate the establishment or expansion of state inspector general offices, accompanied by federal funding to support their operations and activities.
• Congressional appropriations — Congress may appropriate funds to support oversight and accountability efforts at the state level, including funding for inspector general offices. These appropriations are typically outlined in annual federal budgets or through specific legislative measures.
• Emergency funding — During times of crisis or emergency situations, such as natural disasters or public health emergencies, federal funding may be allocated to states to address immediate challenges, including the need for enhanced oversight and accountability measures.

State inspectors general often play crucial roles in ensuring transparency, accountability and integrity in government operations, and federal funding can significantly contribute to their effectiveness and capacity to fulfill their mandate. However, the availability of federal funding for state inspectors general may vary depending on the prevailing political and fiscal landscape at the federal level, as well as the priorities of individual states and their respective administrations.

In conclusion, I urge you to support the establishment of an Office of Inspector General in our state. By doing so, it will demonstrate your commitment to upholding the principles of good governance, accountability and transparency, and ensure that the interests of the citizens are protected. Thank you. We are pushing to be let in, so we can do this together. How can we do this together?

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.