S.B. 361

VETOES

Administration and the Department of Fiscal Services agreed on compromise language
that would require agency permission before original records could be removed to the
Office of Legislative Audits. Unfortunately, the Legislature rejected this compromise.
The adopted language is unacceptable because it gives agencies and contractors no
meaningful input into where an audit shall be conducted. I am hopeful the Legislature
will reconsider this position and adopt language more narrowly tailored to meet the needs
of the Office of Legislative Audits.

An equally important concern is the requirement that entities being audited provide any
information the Legislative Auditor "requests" for the audit, rather than "finds to be
needed." In my view, this change creates ambiguities in terms of what information the
Legislative Auditor can access from private entities. The current standard permits the
Auditor access only to information directly related to the audit itself. My concern is that
a broad interpretation of this legislation could open the door for potential fishing
expeditions reminiscent of the Congress and its General Accounting Office. If used
improperly, the State's contracting relationships with private businesses could be
substantially negatively impacted. While I understand this is not the intent of the current
Legislative Auditor, my concern is with future auditors and the future interpretation of
this provision.

The State must and should monitor grants and contracts to assure compliance, legality
and efficiency. The State Auditor, however, should not have the ability, without just
reason, to intrude in private businesses in an unbridled fashion. This legislation
inadvertently creates such opportunity. The existing legal standard of obtaining
information on a "finds to be needed" basis is sufficient. Expanding that standard to
include a record that "is requested" has the potential of creating unwarranted and costly
intrusions into private enterprises' operations.

The Executive and Legislative branches have worked together to improve our State's
pro-business environment and I am concerned that this bill may send an anti-business
message. I will work with the General Assembly and support a more carefully crafted
proposal that clarifies the Legislative Auditor's powers while providing appropriate
safeguards for State agencies and private entities.

For the above reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill 361.

Sincerely,

Parris N. Glendening

Governor

Senate Bill No. 361

AN ACT concerning

General Assembly - Department of Fiscal Services - Office of Legislative Audits

FOR the purpose of altering the time requirement within which the Office of Legislative
Audits is mandated to conduct fiscal/compliance audits; clarifying that the
Legislative Branch is exempt from the fiscal/compliance audit requirement;
providing factors the Office shall take into consideration in determining the audit
schedule for the units of government that are subject to the Office's audit authority;

- 3984 -