FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Candidate for MN State Auditor Nate George Responds to Recently Unveiled DFL Anti-Fraud Bills and Office of Program Integrity Report
An Expert on fraud detection and investigation’s insights into the lack-luster efforts at the state, to hold itself accountable for enabling massive, critical, systemic failures in fraud prevention.
St. Paul, MN – The “Roadmap to Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention” underscores what Minnesotans have known for years: proactive oversight and accountability must improve. I agree with the report’s recognition that our systems too often respond to fraud after losses have already occurred. To give some grace on this issue though, the very nature of audits is somewhat reactive, as you can’t audit information that doesn’t exist yet.
Where I differ, however, is in the proposed path forward
Fraud prevention cannot focus solely on limiting “opportunity.” While internal controls matter, durable reform must also address motivation. Transparency is one of the strongest deterrents available to government. Making financial information more publicly accessible and ensuring fraud is consistently investigated and prosecuted changes the risk calculation for those considering abuse of public programs.
Minnesota needs a system where bad actors understand that fraud will not only be detected, but pursued.
Opportunity mitigation should primarily occur at the legislative stage. Laws must be written with clear guardrails from the outset. Too often, hastily drafted statutes create ambiguity, loopholes, and administrative complexity that later require expensive corrective measures. Preventing fraud begins with precise lawmaking, not simply expanding bureaucracy after failures occur.
Structural reform is also necessary
Independent oversight cannot thrive when investigatory bodies are embedded within the very agencies they review. Department-level Offices of Inspector General inevitably face institutional pressures and divided loyalties. Department OIGs at the very least, give the perception of a massive conflict of interest between being independent or holding their own employer accountable. Minnesota would be better served by centralized, independent auditing and compliance oversight within:
• The State Auditor’s Office – my proposal is to re-name as the Local Government & Special Tax Districts Auditing Division, due to its focus on local governments only, and move under the Independent Statewide Office of Inspector General
• The Office of the Legislative Auditor – my proposal is to re-name as the State Agency & Programs Audit Division and moved under the Independent Statewide Office of Inspector General, focused on state agency and program oversight
• A truly Independent Constitutional Statewide Office of Inspector General that does not answer to the Governor, or a majority-controlled Legislature, and elected by The People. Providing centralized auditing & compliance oversight for all state and local government and consolidating government rather than adding new layers
Auditors must have continuous, unfettered access to standardized financial reporting systems. Fragmented agency-specific systems and use of private CPA firms submitting annual reports, hinder real-time monitoring and delay detection. Centralized control and standardized reporting enable ongoing compliance oversight rather than episodic review. Minnesotans also deserve a one-stop online reporting portal for complaints and fraud tips, routed behind the scenes to the appropriate investigatory authority. Citizens should not have to navigate government silos to report concerns.
Enforcement coordination must improve as well
Joint task forces that include law enforcement and prosecutorial liaisons should be mandated to ensure cases are developed with prosecution in mind from the start.
Declinations to prosecute should require documented legal justification, reinforcing accountability across the system, and incentivizing process improvement if the reason for declination is due to inadequate evidence.
Many recommendations in this report, and in recent anti-fraud legislation released by the DFL, only go so far as to revisit challenges long identified in prior audits. Many are the exact same issues I’ve been highlighting since the beginning of my campaign last Fall, without spending a single penny. While analysis is valuable, Minnesotans are justified in asking what measurable outcomes have resulted from the significant public resources already invested in the Office of Program Integrity.
This report largely catalogues problems already well documented
The solutions I have advocated throughout my campaign, including a Fraud Risk Score framework and proposed amendments to Chapter 6 to strengthen the State Auditor’s authority to impose administrative penalties for persistent non-compliance, focus on systemic accountability rather than expanding government layers.
Minnesota does not need more government
We need smarter government that is more transparent, more enforceable, and more accountable.
Empowering existing oversight institutions, strengthening prosecution pathways, and ensuring public visibility into financial operations provide stronger deterrence while preserving efficient government.
Fraud prevention is ultimately about trust.
Trust is built through transparency, independence, consequences and demonstrated accountability.
Minnesotans deserve nothing less.
###