I don't really disagree with you, frankly; it's a very good point. As the accounting officer, when I sat down with my staff, I was a bit surprised that since 1941.... But setting that aside, in recent years the program had not been audited, because probably some of these things would have been picked up.
An audit is not a bad thing. An audit says you have problems here and problems there. I'm not going to pass judgment on that. It was not audited. I would like to have seen it audited in the context of a big department. You have a risk-based approach, and someone somewhere--your own people, not the OAG--says you should be looking at that program. I think a lot of these things would have been picked up and corrected.
I just want to leave with you the thought that when people are trying to work in an environment where both the complexity and the workload have increased, they will go to the more pressing. They're trying to do a good job, and things like websites and going from a draft to a final policy will be of lesser priority even if they are, to my mind, important, critical.
There is one last point: it was done, and it was done quickly. They were draft. It's not as if they didn't exist. They were polished up, buffed up, and finalized.