Curious, that story about how NU would like fewer “mandates.” We’ve all heard about unfunded mandates, but NU appears to have a different take on what they are.
NU told lawmakers they could live without the requirement that the state auditor handle NU audits. They’d rather go back to those private audits that never seem to find any issues.
I’ve never read an audit of a public institution that said much of anything… except State Auditor Mike Foley’s audits. So I can understand why NU would rather go back to the private sector firms.
NU says that would save money, but provided no specifics. Is it really about saving money? Or is it about something else?
But NU didn’t stop there. It also said it would like to get rid of the oversight the Coordinating Commission provides it for bond issues and facilities. The commission said it often find places to save money during their review.
So is this about unfunded mandates, or unwanted oversight?