Illinois taxpayer-funded lobbying and lobbying transparency

The Illinois Policy Institute recently wrote about the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform’s report on Illinois taxpayer-funded lobbying:

[The report] found that “taxpayers paid lobbyists nearly $6.4 million to influence their own state government last year.” The money was spent by cities, counties, and other public bodies to lobby state government.

This, of course, is not the total amount of Illinois taxpayer-funded lobbying. The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform requested information from 195 political entities, excluding smaller entities. The report also focused on contracts with lobbyists, not taxpayer-funded lobbying associations through which local governments also seek to influence legislatures and which also hire lobbyists. This, of course, means that the total for taxpayer-funded lobbying in Illinois is much greater.

This work encourages transparency in taxpayer-funded lobbying, which is important; many people aren’t even aware that the practice even exists. The Illinois Policy Institute recommends Illinois follow in the steps of Minnesota, whose auditor compiles and publishes information on local entities’ lobbying activities each year.

At Sunshine Review, we’re hoping to do just that: to encourage local governments to be more open about where they spend taxpayer dollars, and to educate citizens on what it is that their money goes to fund. Lobbying isn’t bad, but a lack of knowledge is.

Showroom transparency pops up in Delaware

Government officials need to realize that while the first step is transparency, the second foot to drop is accountability. Especially, government official’s play nice soundbites promising transparency and then never follow-up on their pledge.

Yet we’re seeing more and more cases of “showroom transparency” popping up. For example, in Delaware, where in 2009 Governor Jack Markell committed his administration to transparency.

I pledge that my administration will be more transparent and accountable than any that have come before.
– Delaware Governor Jack Markell, January 21, 2009

Now Governor Markell is making sweetheart deals and saying he hasn’t had the right opportunity (or time) to enact transparency. It’s time for him to take the steps he promised for a transparent and accountable government, or he may be held accountable come the next election.

H/T: Vox Populi

Maryland counties cut spending on travel and training

Less fun for them, more funds for us.

Local government officials often have conferences to go to and people to meet. This year, Maryland leaders are deciding that its not worth the price tag.

Anne Arundel County Executive John R. Leopold summed it up by saying “Traveling out-of-state to conferences, and in this economic climate … I’m not going to allow that to occur.” Leopold has reduced spending on employee training by about $50,000 since he took office three years ago: he is conducting more business by phone instead of making costly trips and encourages employees to get information from websites instead of at conferences or training seminars.

Counties are responding with similar prudence state-wide. Officials are getting creative, using the internet to provide professional development information instead of sending employees to conferences. And employees aren’t even sending in requests to attend conferences, knowing they will be rejected.

In Howard County only crucial travel and training expenses are considered, such as travel for public safety personnel who need to keep their certifications current. For example, the county recently denied a request a financial analyst to attend the Government Finance Officers Association conference. The analyst would have received training in technology and digital government issues, a current focus for Howard County, but the county determined the training wasn’t critical or crucial.

*In Baltimore County, officials have cut training and travel budgets by about 15 percent, which includes spending among schools, the community college, libraries, and county government.

*Frederick County officials have made similar reductions in every department for expenses related to travel and training.

Maryland counties cutting spending on conferences is noteworthy. It’s in my nature to remember scandals more than responsible behavior, and just last year, Maryland counties were facing serious criticism over Facebook pictures showing government employees drinking and partying at the Maryland Counties Association conference.

Still, while it has taken serious economic problems for some governments to tighten up their budgets and really prioritize the most necessary of spending, it is good to know that citizens’ interests—and money—are in responsible, thrifty hands.

Free speech regulation masquerading as ‘transparency’

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, have introduced legislation to gut the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision protecting the free speech rights of citizens when organized into groups such as labor unions, corporations and trade associations.

Beyond the reporting of group expenditures, the Schumer and Van Hollen bills, if enacted, would require the speech-chilling disclosure of individual contributors.

On May 10, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board ruled that tribes, corporations and other groups must report spending on political advertising. In so doing, the board staff lamented that current Wisconsin law is insufficient to force the likewise speech-chilling public disclosure of the identities of those who simply exercise their free speech rights by contributing lawfully to legitimate organizations.

The Washington Post recently published an article citing “transparency” as justification for effectively regulating Twitter content. The article, “Undercover persuasion by tech industry lobbyists,” fingers lobbyists who “tweet” under their names (gasp!) without a legal disclaimer or link to their most recent lobby disclosure forms.

Every effort to erode liberty and free speech always is disturbing. What is truly alarming about these recent examples is how new and proposed violations of individual rights are lathered in transparency rhetoric. As an advocate of real transparency, I’m concerned that such a masquerade impedes both free speech and transparency.

Transparency is not a duty of private citizens to one another, nor is it a regulatory standard that must be met before free speech is deemed permissible. And, transparency is not a set of hurdles to be cleared before a citizen is allowed admission into the public square.

Transparency is the affirmative duty of government to disclose information to citizens. Transparency guarantees access to information that empowers every citizen to hold government officials accountable for the conduct of the public’s business and the spending of taxpayers’ money. Official accountability to citizens is the great positive—the cornerstone of self-government and liberty.

Without transparency, government cannot be held accountable. And, without accountability, there is no self-government. Without accountability, government of the people is government over the people.

The opportunities for government transparency have never been greater. The Internet allows direct, low cost access to virtually unlimited quantities of documents and data, while an array of telecommunications devices can instantly transmit information to millions of citizens simultaneously.

But for all the power of these technologies, government cannot be fully transparent—and thus held accountable—unless disclosure is de rigueur.

Unfortunately, it seems the impulse to regulate has likewise never been greater. Proposals that further expand regulation and censorship are dangerous to both government transparency and free speech.
John Wonderlich of the Sunlight Foundation, a group we at Sunshine Review admire, was quoted in the Post article as saying that the network of social media is something of a “Wild West.” Frankly, that’s a good thing. It means that a vibrant and prolific public dialogue is occurring—a necessity for a healthy republic. The more people express ideas, the better.
If there is an issue with anonymous blogs or tweets, the problem is self-correcting. Free debate is far superior to government regulation in exposing bad actors.

Since 2008, Sunshine Review has analyzed more than 5,000 state and local government websites assessing their transparency on a 10-point scale. In March, Sunshine Review recognized each website scoring a 9 or 10. We were only able to identify 39 winners, including Wisconsin, from the more than 5,000 websites.

Clearly, government at every level has a long way to go to meet its transparency obligations to citizens. The body politic would benefit greatly if government would focus on meeting its disclosure obligations to citizens instead of looking for new ways to regulate individual speech.

Michael Barnhart is president of Sunshine Review (www.sunshinereview.org).

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Michael-Barnhart-Free-speech-regulation-masquerading-as-transparency-94463734.html#ixzz0obkXVI00

Texas open meeting laws and new media

Last Tuesday, May 11, the Texas Senate State Affairs Committee spent nearly three hours discussing how the emergence of social media has changed the way governmental bodies conduct public business.

These new tools can be used by elected officials to better communicate with constituents. But as Keith Elkins, a former Capitol reporter and now executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, noted, elected officials could also use their cell phones, Blackberrys, laptops, and personal computers to communicate with one another in secrecy, outside of the state’s open records law and theTexas Open Meetings Act. He isn’t the first person to worry about this. Jason Stverak, president of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, worried earlier this month about the lack of archiving in new media: while public officials are more available to their constituents, the are also more available to each other through means that circumvent open meetings law.

Senate State Affairs Committee chairman Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, recommends the Texas Legislature address how elected officials use the Internet to assure the public that no one is using the technology to violate the state’s Open Meetings Act or the Public Information Act. He also said public officials should not live in fear of being accused of violating the Public Meetings Act if they use electronic devices to communicate with others.

I wrote last week about the being behind municipalities using taxpayer dollars to sue Texas in order to “gut” the state’s open meetings law. Last year, four cities and some 20 local officials from across the state filed a federal lawsuit, supported by the Texas Municipal League, arguing that the penalties for violating the Act are harsh and unconstitutional. These penalties includ six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
“We’ve got some good folks who are threatened with jail by innocent remarks or e-mails” said Amarillo Mayor and League president Debra McCartt.

Of course, there are consequences for a law that isn’t strict. The Illinois FOIA improvements that went into effect this year have sought to remedy lax execution of the state’s open meetings and records laws by setting up strict deadlines for compliance, and severe penalties for failing to do so.

It seems the answer is for Open Meetings Laws to explicitly state what is and isn’t acceptable, and to make clear what the exemptions to the law are. These laws need to address changing technology. It isn’t fair to officials for them to be unclear about whether their Tweet breaks the law, and it isn’t fair to citizens to be unable to access a Tweet relating to public business. Lastly, breaking the law needs to come with penalties that are strict enough to induce compliance.

Join us tomorrow on Twitter from 2-3 Eastern Standard Time to talk about Texas Open Meetings Law and open meetings laws in your state. Use hashtag #FOIAchat to talk to other transparency advocates about questions you may have or your experiences with open meetings. (If you can’t make it, our discussions are always archived.) For a topic schedule, look here.

Time for the Government to GIF with it

I apologize for the title of this blog, as I’m hopelessly in love with puns. I’m also a fan of transparency and an übergeek when it comes to new technology. IMB hit this trifecta today when they released their Government Industry Framework (GIF). According to the press release:

IBM unveiled the IBM Government Industry Framework (GIF), designed to address persistent challenges that Governments face today. IBM GIF is a unified software platform for implementing comprehensive solutions focused around improving citizen services, increasing transparency, enhancing public safety, crime prevention, managing law enforcement, disaster management, security threats, exploding urban and IT infrastructure, effective traffic management and tax and revenue management.

The framework follows a unified approach to accelerate the deployment of solutions to build a Smarter Government. This approach is superior to the two traditional practices: custom development, which is lengthy and expensive, and packaged applications that are inflexible, standalone and requires heavy customization. The framework enables customers to choose from a variety of industry solutions that are pre-integrated on common middleware and industry-specific extensions. As a result, customers can deploy solutions in their current environment faster and at lower cost without compromising on flexibility and choice.

Cheap, customizable, and government transparency? Did you hear that? It was all the government’s excuses flying out the window.

Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations get perks of government money, commit to none of the responsibility

Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations aren’t government entities. Technically.

But these associations receive money from governments, which get this money from taxpayers (hence “taxpayer-funded”). And all of this is behind closed doors; as far as I know, these organizations do not need to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (but I’d love to be proven wrong). Of course, there is the lobbying that these organizations do, none of which is made obvious by governments to its citizens. Transparency is necessary here.

Unfortunately, some of those associations are fighting just that. In Illinois, the Illinois Municipal League has been a leading voice in opposing changes to the Illinois FOIA, changes that have strengthened the open records law in attempt to fight the problems the weaker version of the law has led to. (Editorialization: It seems unjust for your money to help fund an effort to decrease your ability to hold government accountable.)

Besides lobbying, taxpayer-funded lobbying associations play other influential roles in government. They can be involved closely in important governmental decisions, again highlighting the need for transparency.

The South Suburban Mayors & Managers Association in Illinois is one example. Trustees of Flossmoor, a city in Illinois, had to approve an amendment to reduce the amount of federal stimulus money allotted to cities by the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association, to use for resurfacing a stretch of Flossmoor Road. That’s right: an organization with no accountability to taxpayers is alloting American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money. The association went on to request of each of its member towns that received more stimulus money to free up stimulus where possible to free up funds for use by other towns. Perhaps this is a great idea. But the problem is that an association with, again, no accountability to citizens and no need to make their dealings transparent, is behind such significant and influential decisions.

Since the lines between nonprofit and public entity are so blurred, and because the associations often have an intimate role in government, it only makes sense that taxpayer-funded lobbying associations make their activities more public. Or that member governments take the initiative in proactive disclosure. It is, after all, your money.

Central Falls should make the teacher agreement public

Central Falls, a school district in Rhode Island, gained notoriety after firing all of its teachers due to continued bad academic performance of its students. Obama hailed the action as an example of accountability in the education system.

Now, we learn that the school district and teachers’ union has come to an agreement that will hire 87 percent of the teachers back (sans the application process). This was after over 700 other teachers had applied to take on the positions.

The new agreement between the teachers and school board will promote “accountability” and enforce “commonsense” solutions.

Too bad this agreement, and the new changes, have not been made public. If Central Falls wants to ensure accountability of teachers performance than the district needs to disclose how the school is being run. According to Sunshine Review’s checklist, the student’s aren’t the only one’s earning failing grades. This agreement, along with other commonsense data needs to be proactively disclosed on the district’s website.

Everything’s bigger in Texas, including attempts to exclude taxpayers

Taxpayer money helps fund a lot, more than taxpayers know about. Cities use taxpayer-money to lobby states and the federal government (a practice called “taxpayer-funded lobbying“). Anything that government does should be open to the government, that is our stance. Unfortunately, this practice is anything but open and there is little information available on it and taxpayer-funded lobbying associations.

And taxpayer-funded lobbying associations are making it so that government is less open. In Texas, the Texas Open Meetings Act is under assault. The Texas Municipal League is behind an effort to get cities to sue the state in order to weaken the open meetings law.

To put this into perspect: Texas citizens are funding an organization, which is encouraging Texas cities to sue the state, which are suing the state using the money of Texas citizens in order to prevent these citizens access to government meetings.

We’ll make sure to continue following this story. And make sure to tell us what you think.

North Carolina starts to solve corruption woes with transparency

Many people, including Senior Editor of Sunshine Review Kristinpedia, really dislike empty, optimistic phrases. For example, “something good always comes out of something bad.”

This may turn out to be the case in North Carolina, however. The state has seen its share of political scandals in the last few months with several executive officers facing accusations of impropriety and criminality. The former governor, for example, is under federal investigation for his personal relationships and use of taxpayer money. It is in this context that Governor Bev Perdue’s “Good Government Package” is being presented to the General Assembly. The package includes legislation and executive orders to “strengthen ethical guidelines in state government.”

The plan, announced April 5, is part of a “15-month push for stronger ethics, transparency and accountability in state government,” according to a press release from the Office of the Governor.

The legislation involves transparency regarding ethics and relationships, not transparency in spending. It calls for the following list of rules for government officials:
*A one-year cooling off period before high level state employees can register as lobbyists
*A 75 percent attendance requirement for appointees to boards and commissions, and a forced resignation for those failing to meet the requirement.
*A requirement that persons identify any conflicts of interest they have not covered by the State Ethics Act
*A ban on accepting gifts from a company and organization government employees do business with.
the power of the governor to remove governor appointments to a board or commission at will, without cause
*An executive order that calls for full disclosure of an applicant’s background.
*Forced resignation if accused of a felony and not cooperating with related investigations

Increased transparency in any shape is an excellent tool in the fight against corruption. It helps expose corruption and serves as a warning to prevent future indiscretions because of the promise that those actions will be made public.

While its great that the state is addressing its transparency problem head on, there is room for improvement elsewhere. Sunshine Review rates the North Carolina official website, NC.gov, a “C-” for transparency. Current state contracts are not provided on the site, and it does not provide lobbying information or how to request public records under the North Carolina Public Records Law. (It also does not have ethics information, but of course, the state is working on it.) As far as local governments in North Carolina go, we rate North Carolina county websites an average of “D.”

Since North Carolina is working on opening its government, it can look to seize this opportunity to become more transparent from the ground up. Transparency and light can come from corruption and darkness. We wish the state luck in continuing to address its corruption issues, and see room for the state to embrace proactive disclosure.

Next Page »