Office of Inspector General bill moves forward — although reluctantly for some members

An Office of Inspector General may yet be created this session to fight the fraud, waste and abuse in state programs.

Stuck in the House State Government Finance and Policy Committee for the past month, HF1338/SF856* finally got through Tuesday with bipartisan support, although some is tepid.

Rep. Matt Norris

“Fraud in any form is unacceptable,” said Rep. Matt Norris (DFL-Blaine), who sponsors the bill with Sen. Heather Gustafson (DFL-Vadnais Heights). “An independent Office of the Inspector General is one tool we can use to both prevent and investigate fraud.”

The office would operate independently of other executive branch agencies and report directly to the governor. The inspector general would be a five-year appointment and must be approved by a three-fifths vote of the Senate. Further, a law enforcement agency could be created within the office to conduct statewide investigations and to make arrests.

As amended, the bill heading to the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee contains additions to office powers to incorporate things that’d prevent fraud in the first place including:

• setting standards and best practices related to the operation, investigation and fraud prevention processes across state agencies along with performance reviews against such standards;
• facilitate information sharing between departments and agencies to avoid multiple agencies from being defrauded by the same suspect; and
• evaluate the performance of current agency-based inspector generals and recommend any improvements needed.

Still, Norris believes the bill has “critical concerns” that need to be addressed in a bipartisan way before it is ready for House passage. Still, he calls the amendment “a step in the right direction” to reach the ultimate solution.

“I’m glad we’re going to continue working on it. We’ve heard many times in this committee if a bill’s not ready for prime time we don’t move it,” said Rep. Jim Joy (R-Hawley).

While expressing concerns, some DFL members said their positive vote was simply so the bill can work its way through the committee process. Without changes, their future votes are not expected.

Committee Co-Chair Rep. Ginny Klevorn (DFL-Plymouth) said the bill would duplicate work being done at the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and Office of the Legislative Auditor, and she and Rep. Kristin Bahner (DFL-Maple Grove) noted there is no price tag associated with the office creation.

Rep. Larry Kraft (DFL-St. Louis Park) said the bill is “substantially better,” but he was the lone vote on either side of the aisle against moving it to another committee.

Among his dissension, he believes it’d be a better use of state money to upgrade current systems instead of creating a “very large bureaucracy.”