There's an old joke about how governments hire their financial advisers. An interview panel is formed, and the first candidate is asked, "What's two and two?" He answers "Four," and is dismissed. The second also answers "Four," and she too is shown the door. But the third replies, "What number did you have in mind?" and promptly gets the job.

Most of us think there's enough truth there that we're disinclined to give politicians the last word on money matters. We want someone going over the books whose arm can't be twisted.

At the provincial level, that person is the auditor general who reads the government's financial statements before they're published and certifies them accurate.

Now there's a proposal to set up a similar watchdog for municipal governments. A bill has been tabled in the legislature and applications are being invited for a five-member audit council to work with the new appointee.

Some good reasons can be found for going in this direction. But there are serious pitfalls as well.

To start with, a quibble. The new agency is to be located in Surrey. But the Lower Mainland already gets more than its share of government business - and jobs.

This office could easily function in a smaller community. Put it somewhere like Nanaimo or Vernon.

Now, the more troubling concerns. Municipalities are already required to have their financial statements reviewed by an independent firm, such as KPMG. So any funny business is effectively ruled out.

The plan to create a central audit office suggests a different motive.

First, there is a real risk that a government-appointed auditor will want to import the latest private-sector accounting rules. Good thing, you might think. But it's not.

In recent years, the B.C. auditor general has forced the province to adopt business accounting techniques. The result is an unfathomable jungle of items expensed, then recovered, then partially netted out, then bracketed back in - and on and on.

In the private sector, there are investment analysts and bond-rating companies to make sense of this complexity.

But a government's financial statements should be intelligible to everyone, not just to experts with degrees in accountancy.

The second concern is more finely balanced. At present, most municipalities include business plans in their annual reports.

The idea is sound. City managers should say what they intend to accomplish with the ratepayers' money.

For the most part, though, business plans have become something of a game. Goals are laid out that are almost certain to be met, so that management can claim they've succeeded.

An example: Public health departments may promise to reduce infant mortality rates in their community. That sounds like they're being accountable, but it's really a safe bet. Child deaths have been declining for decades.

Meanwhile, more difficult targets - how to reduce the number of deer in urban centres, for instance - tend to be left out.

If the new auditor can bring a sharper focus here, so much the better. But as before, some straight talking is required.

There is a tendency for watchdog agencies to overplay their role. We don't want a central audit authority that thinks its job is to second-guess municipal councils.

"How will you measure the success of your deer-reduction program?" is a legitimate question the new agency might ask.

"Why have you not implemented a deer-reduction plan?" is not. That's a matter for the voters to take up, not a municipal accountant.

Unfortunately, the draft legislation is unclear on these issues. As it stands, the appointee gets to decide.

For such an important post, that's too risky. Before the bill is passed, MLAs should lay down the law. We want public records to remain readable by the public. And we want an auditor who remains a servant, not a boss.