（2004）restoring auditor credibility tertiary monitoring and logging of continuous auditing systems（Discussion2）.pdfVIP

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 5 (2004) 203– 205 Discussion Discussion of restoring auditor credibility: tertiary monitoring and logging of continuous assurance systems Paul John Steinbart * School of Accountancy and Information Management, Arizona State University, CI Business Box 873606, Tempe, AZ 85287-3606, USA Received 1 January 2004; accepted 1 January 2004 Alles et al. (2003) have creatively proposed using one emerging issue facing the profession, namely, how to best take advantage of technological advances that permit reengineering the audit process, to solve another pressing concern—the need to restore public trust in auditing. Their arguments are thorough and fairly convincing. Yet, I have several questions and concerns that I raise with the objective of stimulating further work in this important area. My first concern relates to the paper’s title and major goal—restoring auditor credibility. I do not think that Alles et al.’s proposed system of tertiary monitoring and logging truly accomplishes that objective. Webster (1993) defines credibility as ‘‘the quality or state of a thing which renders it possible to be believed,’’ and defines a credible person as one who is ‘‘of known veracity and integrity.’’ Alles et al. (2003, p. 2) characterize their proposal as auditing the audit. But does not the need for such an ‘‘audit’’ imply a lack of trust in the auditee? Indeed, is not the underlying rationale for audits of financial statements the belief that management cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased ac