ALLENTOWN (TNS) — Now we know why Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration initially refused to explain why some businesses were granted waivers to stay open early in the pandemic while others were forced to close.

The waiver program was so poorly run it didn’t always have answers to provide.

An audit released this week by state Auditor General Timothy DeFoor concluded the decision-making lacked accountability; wasn’t always timely; and, most regrettably, wasn’t consistent.

That hurt business owners by depriving them of income. And at times it failed the mission of protecting the public from possible exposure to COVID-19, DeFoor said.

I didn’t expect the audit to be favorable, based on the backlash to the program that was created in March 2020 after the Wolf administration ordered non “life-sustaining” businesses to close.

The findings were even more dismal than I anticipated.

The Department of Community and Economic Development, which ran the program, did not agree with all of the findings. It noted the program was developed quickly, under unprecedented conditions that changed rapidly. It said changes were made to the program as it progressed, to improve it.

The program certainly operated under challenging circumstances. But as DeFoor said, when livelihoods were on the line, the state had an obligation to ensure there was a level playing field. And the audit raises a lot of doubt whether there was.

The waiver program required businesses that were not part of industries determined to be “life-sustaining” to apply for permission to open. They had to prove their operations met that criteria.

The program immediately came under fire for its handling of an application from Wolf’s former cabinetry company, Wolf Home Products. It was granted a waiver, which then was rescinded.

The audit concluded that decisions were not influenced by politics. But it said that applicants who sought help from state lawmakers may have gotten their requests moved to the top of the pile.

The auditor general reviewed a sample of 150 waiver applications, out of 42,380 that were submitted.

The responses to 103 requests appeared reasonable. Auditors questioned the responses to 45 applications. Two did not appear to be responded to.

A business that appeared to sell picture frames, based on its name and website, initially was told it could not open. That decision later was reversed because the business indicated it was in the “woodworking” industry, which was allowed to operate without a waiver.

A greenhouse that applied to open only for delivery and pickup initially was told it didn’t need a waiver because it already was allowed to offer those services. Later, it was told it could not offer the requested services. The auditor general said it should have been allowed to remain open for delivery only, but that limitation was not explained.

A massage business initially was granted a waiver to open because it was considered to be “life-sustaining.” That decision was reversed two days later after another massage business questioned it.

“The results of some of these questionable responses had real-life negative consequences to businesses that should have been able to operate but instead were notified that they had to close,” said DeFoor, a Republican who took office this year and finished the audit started by his predecessor, Democrat Eugene DePasquale.

The Department of Community and Economic Development acknowledged that different responses may have been appropriate in some of the questioned cases. But it said that doesn’t mean the original decisions were incorrect at the time.

The auditor general found inconsistent decisions were made for similar businesses within the same industry. Reviews were “very subjective and heavily dependent on wording used.” Those that mentioned “health care workers” sometimes got a favorable answer.

The Department of Community and Economic Development disagreed, saying that “most apparent inconsistencies were based more on perception rather than reality.” Decisions were based on the information that businesses provided, which was not always consistent, it said.

The audit concluded that correspondence to businesses about decisions on their applications was insufficient and confusing.

When applications were rejected, that decision applied only to the activity requested on the waiver form. Those businesses were allowed to continue other operations that automatically qualified as life-sustaining. But the businesses may have been confused by the language of the rejection letter and closed entirely, auditors said.

Waiver approval letters and letters sent to businesses that could operate without a waiver failed to specify that only life-sustaining operations were allowed. Other services were prohibited, but the owners may have believed they could open their entire operation.

The auditor general’s office struggled to analyze specific decisions because staff who decided the waiver requests, and other staff who reviewed those decisions, were not required to explain in writing the justification for their ruling, or for any changes to an initial ruling.

Justifications sometimes were included in a notes field in one database. But the lack of information, including which employees made the decisions, left the auditor general unable to reach conclusions about the process.

Some businesses got answers within a day. Others took nearly a month. The average response time was 5.7 days. The process was slowed because some businesses submitted multiple applications, adding to the workload.

With the economy fully open again, some may question why there is a need to revisit this now.

It’s always important to hold government accountable for decisions that impact lives. And while I pray there never will be another pandemic such as this, should there be, the mistakes made here must be identified so they aren’t repeated.

(Paul Muschick is a columnist for The Morning Call of Allentown.)