The Audit of Orrville
The city examines the airport's books—and discovers a mess
There are advantages to allowing governmental or quasi-governmental agencies run by themselves—”like businesses,” as the saying goes. They can be more efficient. They can save money. They can avoid bureaucratic entanglements.
And then … there’s the flip side, which privatization fetishists tend to overlook: Under the wrong leadership, autonomous agencies with little or no oversight can turn into ungodly messes. It’s what happens when no one’s looking.
Recently, Charlotte city officials—who you may remember trying to exert more control over the airport the city owns, prompting a major hissy fit, legislative meddling on a grand scale, and a lawsuit that remains unresolved—decided to take a look at Charlotte Douglas International. What they found was not pretty.
An analysis by law firm Anderson & Kreiger found the airport undercharged the city’s Animal Control office, by more than $1 million in the last six years, for renting airport land for its office. Similarly, a CMPD helicopter hangar owed another $300,000. City officials plan to reimburse the airport in coming months, but Interim Aviation Director Brent Cagle says the low rent is a symptom of a larger problem.
“This is a lack of administrative oversight, a lack of policies and procedures, and proper internal controls,” says Cagle.
Two other reports, from accounting firm McGladrey, revealed widespread problems with how the airport tracks contracts and payments. For instance, no one double checks sales figures from rental car companies, of which the airport gets a cut. In another case, employees could not find the contract with Continental Airlines for housekeeping services.
Cagle says the root of the problem is how fast the airport has grown, more than quadrupling in size since the early 1980s. For the about 200 contracts with airlines, shops, and construction crews, the airport has one dedicated employee.
Respectfully, Mr. Cagle, the rapid growth of the airport isn’t the root of the problem. It’s a symptom. The root is the idea that government agencies can operate best as, in effect, private companies. That’s fine when the only capital at stake belongs to owners and investors. When it belongs to taxpayers, it’s a far different story.
It’s another point at which the logic of privatizing public services collapses. Undoing the social safety net drives many into poverty because, in basic terms, you can’t fire unproductive people from a society as you would employees. You also run a major risk when you decide to run a government agency like a business because, at an astonishingly high rate, businesses fail.
