concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part">CONCURRING and DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge SIMPSON.

I concur in the thoughtful majority conclusion that the Petitioner, Gene Stilp, fails *43to state a legal basis for the Auditor General to audit the General Assembly.

I write separately to address another aspect of Petitioner’s amended petition for review. Petitioner pleads that the audit performed for the Legislative Audit Advisory Committee by an outside auditing firm was not performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Based on a newspaper report (because he does not currently possess a copy of the audit), Petitioner believes the auditors “were not permitted to look through all of the books or for information to allow them to provide an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.” Amended Petition for Review, ¶ 61; see also ¶¶ 52, 58, 59, 60. Although Petitioner primarily seeks remedies involving an audit by the Auditor General, he also prays for “any other such further equitable or declaratory relief as deemed necessary by the Court....”

Article VIII, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires audits to be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. As implausible as it sounds, we must accept for present purposes that the audit for the Legislative Audit Advisory Commission was not performed according to these standards. Dep’t of Gen. Servs. v. Bd. of Claims, 881 A.2d 14 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). Therefore, I believe Petitioner states a claim against that Commission and its representative member, Noah Wenger. I would require an answer by those Respondents only.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress