KSTP-5 reports,
Program Integrity Director Tim O’Malley unveiled recommendations for combating fraud in state programs on Monday morning.
O’Malley was the man hand-picked by Gov. Tim Walz to look into the fraud question in Minnesota. O’Malley was chosen specifically for his law-enforcement background and nonpartisan bona fides.
Today, O’Malley published his 57-page report on the subject, included at the bottom of the KSTP story. KSTP also embedded a 41-minute video of O’Malley’s press conference today.
To me, the biggest takeaway from the press conference comes at the 8:20 mark, when O’Malley is asked a question about the root causes of the fraud crisis. He state’s bluntly,
There’s a need for a cultural shift within state agencies.
I don’t believe that it is the least bit partisan to observe that the party having complete monopoly over the state’s executive branch for the past 16 years is in no position to oversee a cultural change.
Further evidence on that point: Just today, Gov. Walz appointed Shireen Gandhi, now serving as “temporary” Commissioner of Human Services, to a “permanent” appointment.
O’Malley went on to echo points made by the state’s Legislative Auditor’s office, who speak of a compassion vs. compliance conflict. Too often, state employees see their role as helping the needy, which they accomplish by spending state taxpayer dollars. Compliance is seen as something which interferes with the core mission: compassion.
O’Malley recommends that the compassion-oriented should work for providers, directly serving the needy, rather than in state government, overseeing the programs.
In his report, he includes two recommendations that I endorse. First, he calls (p. 11) for an end to the practice of direct legislative appropriations (earmarks) to service providers. Nonprofits who get money directly bypass the vetting process at the front end and the compliance process on the back end.
Another idea worth pondering from the O’Malley report (page 10),
Consider incentivizing qualified private sector investigators (under
law‑enforcement supervision) to assist in asset recovery.
The incentive would be a percentage of the money recovered as a direct result of their efforts.
Food for thought.
