Big picture
At the State Fair, the candidates for state auditor kept returning to a question that reaches well beyond an accounting office: How can Minnesotans trust government to use their money well?
DFL nominee Zack Filipovich emphasized accounting: the people who maintain local financial records, the safeguards that prevent mistakes and the expertise needed to make oversight work. Republican nominee Scott Jensen emphasized a more forceful public watchdog, one willing to expose wrongdoing and challenge officials. Forward Independent nominee Jay Reeves argued for better data systems that could flag problems sooner, paired with independence from the two major parties.
The competing emphases in the WCCO debate deserve attention because oversight helps determine whether public commitments become dependable services. Money appropriated for a purpose still needs to be tracked, contracts need scrutiny, and someone needs to act when the records do not add up.
For Minnesotans who believe in strong public schools, reliable infrastructure and responsive local government, that work belongs at the center of the argument for public investment. Accountability gives communities a better chance of receiving what they paid for and a way to identify what needs fixing.
What oversight means for Minnesota communities
The every day work of the auditor’s office demands serious attention, expertise, and leadership.
The auditor’s office oversees more than $56 billion in local government financial activity through auditing, reviewing information and reporting. Those are public dollars tied to services people use close to home. The figure describes the scale of the office’s oversight, not a budget the auditor controls.
Consider a recent example. In February, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) reported that Windemere Township in Pine County had paid $297,076.25 on a right-of-way clearing contract with a $175,000 limit. The office also identified weaknesses in contracting procedures and recommended changes. The findings illustrate a practical obligation: residents should be able to see what their government authorized, what it paid and whether the required safeguards were followed.
The office’s responsibilities also reach beyond local government. The auditor conducts Minnesota’s statewide federal single audit under an agreement with Minnesota Management and Budget. Questions about federal program oversight therefore belong in the campaign and candidates should explain which actions their office could take and which depend on other authorities.
Filipovich: Build the capacity to get the numbers right
Filipovich emphasized the office’s accounting and local government oversight responsibilities, drawing on his professional background and experience in local government.
He discussed retaining staff, helping local finance officials and strengthening the checks that prevent errors and misuse. His published platform similarly emphasizes staff capacity, training and support for communities. His credentials are strong as a certified management accountant and having previously served on the Duluth City Council.
Filipovich makes a strong substantive case: the quality of oversight depends in part on whether the people doing the work have the expertise and support to do it well. For a small community, help with financial reporting can be a practical form of protection.
His next task is to make sure voters understand how he plans to deliver that support. Which positions will he prioritize? How will he improve retention? What will he change for a small community that struggles to complete its financial reporting?
For what it’s worth, Filipovich’s political communication skills were impressive on the debate stage at the fair. In a political environment where fraud and oversight will be at the forefront, the DFL is lucky to have a candidate with the experience and skillset of Filipovich.
Jensen: Make accountability visible
Jensen offered a different emphasis: an auditor whose public voice would force attention onto failures.
That is a legitimate part of the job. A finding has limited value if residents cannot understand it or the responsible officials never address it. Public communication should make the evidence and the need for corrective action clear.
Jensen’s campaign also cites experience chairing a bank audit committee and serving on a school board, as well as his time in the Minnesota Senate. His published priorities include internal controls, ongoing audits and work with local governments on best practices.
The test is how he would connect his public pressure to the office’s work. Specific allegations need specific evidence. Promises to expose wrongdoing need a method for investigating concerns, distinguishing mistakes from misconduct and explaining what happens next. That discipline is essential to an office whose findings must remain credible across party lines.
My instinct is that come November, Scott Jensen will once again prove to be the political gift that keeps giving to DFLers when he ultimately loses his third consecutive statewide campaign – in a race that was ripe for the picking for Republicans no less.
Reeves: Use better information to catch problems earlier
Reeves raises another useful challenge: whether financial information could arrive sooner and be easier for the public to use. His platform proposes dashboards, streamlined reporting and expanded analytics, while acknowledging that the auditor cannot freeze payments.
Those proposals raise practical questions. Which local systems can share information? How quickly can records be validated? Who reviews an alert, and who acts on it? Technology can help direct attention, but someone still needs to establish what happened and secure a correction.
Here, too, further explanation is needed on what Reeve would improve exactly. OSA already offers a city-finance comparison tool and reported updating it in March. A proposal for greater transparency should identify what residents would gain beyond the information already available.
What voters should expect from the next auditor
These approaches overlap. Filipovich discusses modernization, Jensen proposes controls, and Reeves wants to help local officials. A capable auditor’s office needs accounting expertise, clear public communication and useful information.
The choice is about how each candidate would organize and lead that work.
To earn voters’ trust, and govern effectively, candidates should clearly identify their first priorities, the staff and funding required, and what they would report after a year. Timely audit completion, fewer recurring findings and documented follow-up are among several data points that could help voters assess performance.
They should also explain how they would handle evidence that damages an ally. An accounting credential, a forceful public persona or a third-party affiliation cannot answer that question by itself.
And as Albus Dumbledore remarked, “it takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends.”
Bottom line
The political stakes are especially clear for Democrats, who have held the auditor’s office for 20 years.A party that asks Minnesotans to invest in public services also owes them a persuasive account of how those services will be managed.
Filipovich is wise to insist on qualified staff, sound controls and independent scrutiny, as well as willing to acknowledge failures when the evidence establishes them.
That gives Filipovich an opportunity to connect his accounting background to something larger than a résumé: a government capable of keeping its promises. It also gives voters a reason to press Jensen and Reeves on how their proposed changes would improve the services and institutions they would help oversee.
The State Fair debate introduced those choices – the campaigns must now make them concrete.
Minnesotans deserve an auditor who helps ensure public money reaches its intended purpose, makes problems understandable and follows through on correcting them. Strong public services depend on that work.