Release the Evidence and Let the Public Decide

The Iowa Department of Management has asked State Auditor Rob Sand to amend Iowa’s 2020 Statewide Single Audit Report after the U.S. Treasury Department reversed an earlier determination regarding the state’s use of federal COVID-19 relief funds.

The dispute dates to 2021, when the State Auditor concluded that Governor Kim Reynolds’ office improperly used approximately $448,000 in federal Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) money to pay the salaries and benefits of 21 Governor’s Office employees between March and June 2020. Federal guidance allowed salary expenses to be paid with COVID relief funds only if employees were “substantially dedicated” to pandemic response activities.

At the time, the Treasury Department agreed with the auditor’s finding, concluding that the Governor’s Office had not adequately documented that the employees met the federal standard. Treasury directed the state to return the funds.

Now, nearly six years later, the Treasury has reached a different conclusion.

According to a June 2 management decision, Treasury’s Office of Inspector General reviewed documentation submitted by the State of Iowa and determined the expenditures were allowable, concluding the earlier audit finding should be considered “unsustained.” Based on that determination, Department of Management Director Kraig Paulsen has asked the State Auditor to amend the 2020 audit report to reflect the federal decision.

Sand has refused, arguing that the reversal is politically motivated and coincides with a change in presidential administrations. He noted that Treasury officials under the Biden administration supported his original findings, while the reversal occurred under the Trump administration.

The competing claims raise an important question that extends beyond politics.

The Missing Piece: What Changed?

Both sides acknowledge that the Treasury changed its position. What remains unclear is why.

Did Treasury review new documentation that was unavailable during the original audit? Did federal officials apply a different interpretation of the phrase “substantially dedicated”? Or did the agency simply reach a different conclusion after reviewing the same evidence?

Those questions remain unanswered.

Transparency Can Resolve the Dispute

Fortunately, this is one controversy that should be capable of objective resolution.

If Treasury determined that the Governor’s Office employees were substantially dedicated to COVID-19 response efforts, supporting documentation should exist. That documentation could include job assignments, work activities, emergency response responsibilities, project records, contemporaneous communications, or other evidence demonstrating that the employees met the federal eligibility requirements during the period in question.

Rather than asking Iowans to choose between competing political narratives, state officials could resolve much of the controversy by publicly releasing the documentation that convinced Treasury to reverse its earlier position.

Doing so would allow the public to evaluate the evidence independently while increasing confidence in the federal decision, regardless of whether it supports the Governor’s Office or the State Auditor.

A Question of Accountability

The issue also raises broader questions about government accountability.

Federal audits are intended to ensure taxpayer funds are used as Congress intended. When findings are reversed years later, particularly after changes in administration, transparency becomes even more important. Public confidence depends not only on the outcome, but also on understanding how that outcome was reached.

Whether the Treasury’s reversal reflects newly submitted evidence, a revised legal interpretation, or a different administrative philosophy, releasing the supporting documentation would allow the public to judge the merits of the decision based on facts rather than politics.

Until then, Iowans are left with two conflicting conclusions and no clear explanation for why one federal agency reached opposite decisions on the same question.

If the Reynolds administration believes the Treasury’s decision fully vindicates its actions, it should release the documentation that persuaded federal officials to reverse their earlier determination. Likewise, if Auditor Sand believes the reversal reflects political influence rather than new evidence, he should identify specifically what documentation he believes remains insufficient. Iowans deserve more than competing political claims; they deserve access to the evidence.