Introduction
On November 23, 2003, The Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee met to discuss the institution of the State Comptroller in the constitution, and his or her powers.
Scope of Authority
The Audited Bodies There was broad consensus in the Committee that the State Comptroller should be given wide range to audit all branches of government, local authorities, and government corporations. It was agreed, however, that the constitution itself should not enumerate the bodies subject to state audit. Instead, the constitution will include a general clause establishing the wide scope, leaving the details to regular legislation.
The power to review policy decisions The committee discussed whether the State Comptroller should also be empowered to review government policy decisions. Committee members agreed the State Comptroller should have the authority to review the implementation of Government policies, but there was debate over whether he or she should address the policy decisions themselves. MK Michael Eitan (Likud) expressed the view that Knesset policy decisions should not, as a matter of principle, be subject to review by the State Comptroller. Dr. Yitzhak Klein of the Israel Policy Center disagreed, saying the Comptroller should be able to intervene in cases of severe failure where other alternatives should have been adopted. MK Eitan called the evaluation of alternatives a political matter, and said that even if an evaluating body is desirable, it should not be the State Comptroller. Dr. Hiller Sommer of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliyaagreed that policy decisions should be reviewed, but not by the State Comptroller. He pointed out that both the Knesset and the courts can, on occasion, participate in such evaluations. He worried that empowering the State Comptroller to evaluate policy decisions would politicize the office, undermining its independence.
Powers of Enforcement
The committee discussed how to deal with cases in which audited bodies refuse to submit information and documents to the State Comptroller. Participants pointed out that the Comptroller currently has few teeth, and agreed that the Comptroller should be granted greater powers of enforcement for its investigations. There was disagreement, however as to whether the issue should be dealt with at the constitutional level.
The Ombudsman
Currently, the State Comptroller also fulfills the function of Ombudsman and serves as an address for individual grievances against the State and public bodies subject to the Comptroller’s audit. Participants in the discussion considered whether the office of the Ombudsman should be mentioned in the constitution and whether the State Comptroller should necessarily fulfill this function. It was concluded that several alternative texts would be drafted for later decision and vote.
The independence of the State Comptroller
The committee agreed that the Comptroller’s independence must be entrenched in the constitution. Other related issues, including the Comptroller’s budget, salary, and procedures of determining them, will be left to regular law.
Bookmark
Print
Send to Friend
Post a comment