Discussant's response to toward a philosophy of auditing;

              Discussant's Response to
Toward a Philosophy of Auditing
Henry P. Hill
Price Waterhouse & Co.
One of the distinguishing differences between academicians and practitioners is illustrated in this paper. The academic oriented tends to speak in abstractions, searching for generalizations of theory in abstract terms whereas the practitioner tends to use concrete terms and concrete illustrations.
Our chairman was aware of this, I'm sure, when he selected the preparer and discussant of a paper on the topic Toward a Philosophy of Auditing. The topic lends itself to a discussion of abstracts, and Dr. Mautz has followed the route that might be expected and has given us a paper inquiring into the theory behind auditing. He has also done a job that someone with a long practicing background like mine could never have done. I think, however, that what's appropriate to inquire into is whether the presence or absence of a theory makes any difference.
I have heard for some time the critics of the accounting profession say that accountants have no idea what the generally accepted accounting principles are that they so glibly refer to. Now Mautz tells us that we don't have a philosophy in support of those examinations we, again so glibly, say we have made. There's only one more accusation that could be made against the professional auditor, which is, "If you don't have a philosophy for your conduct or a frame of reference for its output, why do you bother?" However, despite the inarticulateness of most of its practicing members, there are some members of this profession of ours who believe the independent auditor has a useful role in society—and there are some nonaccountants who believe it, too.
Dr. Mautz addresses himself to two questions:
1. "To whom are we responsible"?
2. "For what are we responsible"?
He then proceeds to demonstrate we don't have the answer to either. Let's take them one at a time.
To Whom Are Auditors Responsible?
First—"To whom are we responsible?" Well, to whom is anyone responsible?
Is a policeman responsible only to his lieutenant because his lieutenant is the primary control over his paycheck?
If an airplane crash occurs, does the crew have its responsibility defined as "Get the passengers off the seats so their blood won't stain the up­holstery
which belongs to the company that pays our salary"?
96