The Daily Herald offers up this in relation to the audit:

Maybe Illinois government?s roots in political and money connections, quid pro quo agreements and wink-and-nudge contracts run so deeply that Blagojevich has found it harder than he expected to change business as usual. Maybe those he entrusted to make the changes have let him down. Maybe the governor intended to change the culture but once in office found it easier to follow a path of less resistance. Or, maybe, the governor?s office has satisfactory answers for many or all of the audit?s criticisms. But shrugging off the audit or attacking the messenger won?t do. Not with so many troubling questions at hand.

I understand the desire to want a response, but frankly, the lack of documentation is alone a point that there aren’t answers to the audit. The audit seeks out such materials–it not being available in so many cases means the agency is seriously troubled. An audit doesn’t raise questions, it answers them.

Mostly, state agencies are monitored by fire alarms. Someone interacting with the agency calls a Lege Member and tells them there is a problem. This works because the Lege has very limited time to monitor state agencies. However, the one type of police patrol they do have is an audit that seeks to determine if the agency is following standard practices on average–that this audit found such horrible findings on just spot checks isn’t potentially exculpatory as CMS seemed to argue, it is more damning than just finding a few issues. It says no one’s following the rules even when a metaphorical quick check is done.

The degree of seriousness of this audit cannot be overestimated.