Notwithstanding, I did my best to take seriously the agency’s pleas that I consider mounds of paper it called evidence of savings. On Wednesday, the day after the audit was published, three top agency officials led me and other reporters into a room where they pointed to two tables stacked with folders and binders stuffed with documents.
“WHEN PEOPLE TALK about transparency, what does that mean?” asked Paul Campbell, CMS director-designee.
“That means visibility into what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, how we’re doing it, what we’re spending it on, with whom we’re spending it on. This gives you a level of transparency unparalleled in the state — unparalleled.”
I listened and asked questions for an hour and 38 minutes. I went back Friday and spent two more hours sifting through the documents. But the question remained: A month after CMS was asked to respond to the audit’s findings, why had the agency not forced evidence of savings into the final draft?
The agency’s officials said Holland’s auditors failed to appreciate the universe of savings in state government, that they were too focused on the value of consultants hired to improve management functions and save the state money.
Doing things differently is fine, but that doesn’t change basic math and basic record keeping. If the savings can be found, why weren’t they in the rebuttal?