Butkovitz for Controller: He has a worthy opponent, but he's raised the level of his game

CHARGED WITH investigating how efficiently taxpayer money is being spent, the office of controller is among the most critical in city government, especially our city government.

But it is also the most flawed - because it's an elected office, the job is inherently political. But the politics would be even more complicated if the job were appointive.

The city needs a controller who is independent enough of the system to challenge it, but is familiar enough with the system (and to those in it) to have the power to change it.

The Republican candidate, Al Schmidt, has impressive credentials: a Ph.D in political history and a stint in the Government Accountability Office, which tracks federal spending. He is largely unknown, and while his outsider status could be a benefit, the reality is that it is more likely to be a liability when it comes to getting things done.

Among Schmidt's recent accomplishments: He's brought substance to the conversation about what the city controller can and should be doing. We suspect he's also made incumbent Alan Butkovitz raise the level of his game.

We've had our beefs with Butkovitz since he took office - mainly when he has focused on "gotcha" reports and campaigns like the need for crosswalks on Roosevelt Boulevard. But these have become fewer and farther between, and over the last year, he has focused more on the job at hand. And he offers compelling testimony for why he should continue in the job.

Our endorsement goes to Alan Butkovitz.

His critics, including his opponent, charge he's not doing what the City Charter says he must: perform fiscal audits of every department, every year. Butkovitz says that cuts in his department limits his capacity to do that, opts for audits every two years and instead focuses on targeted performance audits that review operations and systems, including fiscal oversight.

He argues that fiscal audits are limited, and structural audits give more bang for the buck. Although we haven't always agreed with that, we do now. The test: We asked numerous honest brokers if departmental fiscal audits would have caught the employees recently charged with stealing funds in separate cases from the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program and Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), as well as the problems cited in a recent Butkovitz audit of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative (NTI). All of these could have escaped notice in a simple fiscal audit. (In fact, the state uncovered the WIC and LIHEAP problems; the NTI performance audit was done at the request of City Council.)

Butkovitz says his structural audits have saved the city hundreds of millions of dollars. Whether those are real or potential is at the heart of another issue: Could an outsider (such as a controller from the minority party) bring enough clout to have his recommendations followed, not dismissed as partisan potshots?

Butkovitz is smart, and not afraid to be unpopular. Those are important strengths, and they could raise his game even higher if he did a better job communicating his rationale for selecting departments for audits and was more creative and aggressive about finding money for more audits and reviews.

For instance, he could petition Council for more audit money for specific departmental reviews. That would also serve to remind Council that the controller is not the only one responsible for checks and balances; that job also falls to them.