Part III of What Inspectors General Can Learn from the French
[repost of an article I wrote in 2018. The “future” is now. To stay relevant, IGs should consider the concepts of rigor, palette, and discretion.]
To re-cap from Parts I and II (check out my LinkedIn profile for earlier articles), our Inspector General system, which is celebrating the 40th anniversary of the IG Act this year, is the most robust and independent government oversight system in the world. We inherited our system from the French, and examining our roots—especially the deliciously-French concepts of prestige, expertise, rigor, palette, and discretion—may provide insights on how IGs can evolve to meet the future needs of government. IGs of the future will be living in a world of digitization, big data, and artificial intelligence. Fundamentally, it is our trusted professional judgment that we bring to the table—now and in 2028. Part III focuses on the concepts of rigor, palette, and discretion within the French Inspector General system and how the IGs of the future can increase their sphere of influence.
Rigor
The French Inspection Générale des Finances (IGF) method is founded on the concept of rigor.
In the U.S., government auditing standards call for “sufficient, appropriate evidence” while investigative standards call for “thorough” investigations. The concept of sufficiency of audit evidence has a parallel in American jurisprudence with the legal concept of “sufficiency of the evidence.” In the legal context, sufficient means adequate to meet the applicable evidentiary standard (i.e., preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt). In the context of government audits, it means enough evidence to persuade a knowledgeable person that the findings are reasonable.
Rigor denotes something more, and is generally defined as extremely thorough and exhaustive. In the French audit and investigation process, the IGF describes rigor as follows:
“The methods of investigation and analysis of the Inspectorate General of Finance are first marked by the rigorous objectification of the facts. “Objectivizing” an idea or a perception implies supporting it with concrete, verified and quantified elements. This work of objectification requires a precise, clear and demanding approach, in audit and control work as in those of evaluation and consulting. The IGF attaches particular importance to the robustness, relevance and quality of its methods, which are enriched by on-site surveys, quantitative data analysis and conflicting procedures with the administrations concerned.”
The IGF, moreover, emphasizes “cross-checking points of view, with each additional focus shedding light on the complexity of the public policies that the missions focus on.” This vetting of work product suggests a level of effort and consideration beyond the “obtain and report the views of responsible officials” standard found in the U.S. While in practice there may be little difference between the two standards, the French standard at least stands closer to the scientific method in description and precision.
OIGs of the future can increase their sphere of influence by adopting a rigor mindset and consistently demonstrating this mindset to stakeholders. Mistakes happen, but few things undermine an audit and investigative organization’s credibility more than sloppy or incomplete work. Sharing preliminary findings with management and vetting draft reports—and being genuinely open to consideration of other points of view—are effective ways to demonstrate this rigor. These steps produce the highest quality work product; however, care must be taken to maintain the appearance of independence and objectivity. Independence does not mean being devoid of any contact or interaction. It means being free from undue influence which would call into question the objectivity of the OIG’s findings. Professional standards may need to be amended.
Palette
One word that is definitely not part of the U.S. oversight lexicon is palette. The French system, on the other hand, emphasizes the benefit of providing options to management. Per the IGF:
“At the end of a mission, proposals are frequently formulated in the form of scenarios or options palettes, the objective being to offer the decision-maker several possible solutions, by clarifying the advantages and disadvantages of each. The proposals are subject to an opportunity and feasibility assessment according to the constraints and objectives identified during the mission.”
Presenting a palette of options to management, who are the ultimate decision-makers, is done “in order to grasp the reality and formulate relevant and operational proposals.”
The identification of options is not typically done in the U.S. oversight system. IGs make recommendations in reports to address the cause of identified findings. Recommendations should be specific, practicable, cost effective, and measurable. The identification of options, however, is not prohibited under current government auditing standards. GAO, who is responsible for establishing government auditing standards, has guidance on “How to get Action on Audit Recommendations” which highlights alternative solutions and the notion of cooperation:
“At times, more than one course of action would correct an identified deficiency. When one is clearly better than the others, it should be recommended. When there is no clear basis for selecting one course of action over the others, all should be included along with the pros and cons of each.
* * *
Recommendations are more likely to be accepted when agency managers (or committee members and staff, where applicable) believe that auditors are constructively looking for improvements and have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate in making them. When a recommendation as originally made is not accepted, rapport and mutual respect may make it possible to find acceptable alternative solutions.”
OIGs of the future can increase their sphere of influence by adopting a cooperative and flexible mindset and consistently communicating this mindset to management. The traditional model of oversight or internal audit follows a pattern of fact finding, reporting, and management response. Disputes typically surface during the draft report phase, after positions have become entrenched. A more cooperative model would call for earlier sharing of preliminary findings and increased discussions over proposed or alternative corrective actions to address the findings. It is entirely possible that management, on occasion, may have greater insight into how best to fix a problem identified by an independent IG. At the least, getting management involved in the process will likely increase their commitment to the agreed-upon solution.
Discretion
The final concept from the Inspection Générale des Finances, discretion, is the most foreign to our system, most challenging to apply, and the one most identified with French culture. The IGF puts it simply as follows: “The Service pays particular attention to discretion, an essential guarantee of the trust of its sponsors and interlocutors.”
The closest parallel in the U.S. system is perhaps the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, who until 1996 functioned as both the OIG/internal auditors and law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service. It was founded by Benjamin Franklin and is considered one of the oldest U.S. law enforcement agencies. The Postal Inspection Service was nicknamed the “Silent Service” and famed for the manner in which it discreetly went about its audit and investigative business. Postal Inspection Service policy required inspectors to “keep their own counsel.”
In our current system, each IG may exercise his or her professional judgment on how to share results with the public and media. This has led to occasional differences and recriminations in a few agencies with management decrying that their IG was seeking press for purposes of self-promotion and the IG countering that raising public awareness is the fundamental role of a watchdog. Transparency is essential for public trust.
A 2015 report from the IBM Center for the Business of Government entitled Balancing Independence with Positive Engagement: How Inspectors General Work with Agencies and Congress, (pictured at right) identified trust and confidence in the Inspector General as a key success factor. The challenge is to develop a close working relationship, but not too close as to suggest that the IG has impaired his or her independence and is no longer viewed as objective. As one congressional staff member remarked in the IBM report, congressional committee staff “watches for ‘capture’ of an OIG by the agency.” This report also noted the good practice of the IG avoiding public surprises.
OIGs of the future can increase their sphere of influence by adopting a discretion mindset and consistently demonstrating this mindset to management. Effective watchdogs must be independent always, and bark when necessary. This is an IG’s statutory duty to Congress and the agency head. IGs are also called to promote accountability and transparency, which includes their own oversight activities. In the U.S. system, discretion cannot mean to avoid causing offense, which would be fundamentally contrary to the concepts of independence and objectivity. Discretion can mean, though, being cautious (non-speculative), discerning (differentiating), judicious (good judgment), and barking in a manner which is not intended to draw attention to oneself but to draw public attention to the threat to good government.