During the House Committee on Finance hearing on May 21, 2026, Michael DiBiase, President and CEO of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC), testifies in support of 2026 House Bill 8562, which proposes the creation of an Office of Inspector General.
DiBiase emphasizes that a successful Inspector General should not only investigate specific instances of fraud and missing funds but also help shift the culture of government toward greater responsibility and public trust. RIPEC specifically advocates for adding clarifying language to the bill—modeled after the Association of Inspectors General and Massachusetts legislation—that explicitly grants the office the authority to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of state programs.
He points out a current gap in publicly available data regarding program performance, noting that existing entities like the Auditor General and the Office of Audit and Program Integrity primarily focus on internal financial controls rather than broader program effectiveness. DiBiase argues this explicit oversight is crucial, especially during times of tight state budgets, to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used wisely.
House Bill No. 8562 BY Blazejewski, Kazarian, Hull, Caldwell, Shanley, Lima, Cotter, Spears, Azzinaro, Nardone ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT -- OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Establishes the office of inspector general to investigate the management and operation of agencies in an effort to prevent and deter fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement in the expenditure of public funds.) {LC6482/1} » http://webserver.rilegislature.gov/BillText/BillText26/HouseText26/H8562.pdf
I thank you very much. I'll try to be brief. Michael V. Biase, Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council.
I'm here in support of House Bill 8562, the Inspector General Bill.
I've submitted some written testimony, so I'll be brief.
Inspector Generals operate in, I think, 20 states, and they've proven to be effective.
And I think the thing to remember, the hope for an Inspector General is not
that they would only deliver results from their specific investigations, but also that they would
help to change the culture of government more broadly toward greater responsibility and
accountability, and also ultimately enhance the trust in government. So I think we expect,
we would hope from this, to get more than the particular issues that they're tackling
and the particular savings. And I think there is a real promise for that to happen.
RIPEC has a particular interest and a particular angle here that's a little different. So we've,
we have expressed in our reports a need for more transparent and accountable evaluations
of the effectiveness of state programs, the efficiency of state programs,
especially true when we have tight budgets. In Rhode Island, we have an Auditor General.
We also have an Office of Audit and Program Integrity. But those functions typically focus
on financial operations, controls, and systems, and rarely get into program effectiveness.
We also have a Performance Management Unit at the Department of Administration
that oversees agency performance measures, but their work is typically internal facing
and around the budget. So we don't really see much from them in terms of, from time to time,
they do issue reports, but it's pretty occasional. So our position is that leaves a general lack
of publicly available data to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of state programs.
We hope that the Inspector General would fill this gap. To that end, we respectfully request
some clarifying language to clarify the Inspector General has power in this area. It seems to be
implied. It talks about preventing waste and mismanagement. But if you look at the model
legislation, and by the way, I've started to become knowledgeable in this area like in the last 36
hours, so I don't consider myself very expert in it. But the Association of Inspector General,
they have model legislation that has some specific language about efficiency and effectiveness of
state programs. Massachusetts has that as well. So we hope you would consider that clarifying
language. I think it's a small but important distinction. As I said, I think it's implied
if you read the statute, but I do think when we think of Inspectors General, we think more about
fraud and misappropriation and missing money and things like that, which are important,
but I think there are bigger issues about are our dollars being wisely used? Are there more
efficient ways of operating? So thank you for listening. Happy to take any questions.
