Governor Brad Henry vetoed House Bill 2575, which would have required the Department of Education to finalize its reporting codes and procedures by May 1st, and prohibited the department from changing the codes more than once a year. The bill had previously been unanimously approved by both chambers, who said it would have brought greater transparency for school spending in Oklahoma.

“I can’t believe that Governor Henry actually claims that House Bill 2575 reduces the ability to track funds. In fact, the bill would actually reduce the ability to hide funds while also relieving school districts of a bureaucratic burden. Working with one set of accounting codes for an entire year does not seem to harm other states. We understand that Kansas has not changed its education accounting codes in several years while Oklahoma has changed them multiple times in the same year, making it difficult for districts that have to report the spending. The fact that HB 2575 passed unanimously in both chambers proves that Governor Henry is not responsive to the needs of Oklahomans,” said Brian Downs, Executive Director of Oklahomans for Responsible Government.

You know what I love? Proactive disclosure. I think there is no downside to just publishing government information right on the web. It’s convenient, fast, and cuts down on the whole FOIA hassle.

Which is why it is so exciting that Sen. Jon Tester-D introduced a bill that would require government agencies to publish all their public documents online in a free, indexed database.

But why stop at the three federal branches? America would see just as much benefits from state agency participation, something we’ve already seen in a few states like, Missouri.

I wanted to highlight an excellent op-ed in the Oregon Statesman Journal who commended Attorney General John Kroger movement towards a more transparent government. The paper called it when they said, “Oregon government should adhere to a simple concept: The public’s business must be conducted in public.”

The op-ed went on to describe ways to remove common loopholes for Oregon’s public record law, saying how reforms could help increase transparency in the state.

I’m with them all the way, but I also think they’re thinking too small. Why not publish this information proactively online? And why stop statewide? Oregon’s current grade according to our transparency checklist is a mediocre “C” and the local websites fare even worse, earning an overall “D” transparency grade.

So, let’s think big Oregon, put it online already.

For more on John Kroger and his transparency efforts, read from a few weeks ago.

Some argue for more “Sunshine” in government as if transparency is a positive onto itself. It is not. Transparency matters because it guarantees access to information that empowers every citizen to hold government officials accountable for the conduct of the publics’ business and the spending of taxpayers’ money. Official accountability to the citizen is the great positive; the corner stone of self government and liberty.

Sunshine matters because without transparency there can be no accountability. 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 accountable—unless disclosure is de rigueur.

Freedom of Information Act laws do facilitate a degree of citizen scrutiny. But government agencies easily exploit a variety of FOIA loopholes, and even the savviest citizens can be stymied by the convoluted requirements. Thus, government at every level must be forced to provide citizens ready access to all budgets, contracts, audits, permits, meeting minutes and the like. It is entirely reasonable to expect that such “affirmative disclosure” should be no less stringent than the multifarious disclosure demands government imposes on taxpayers.

Many states, counties, cities and school districts come up short in providing an appropriate level of transparency. For example, California’s budget site does not disclose line item expenditures, grants, state contracts, or employee compensation data. Massachusetts has no online database of state spending. New York posts its financial reports online, but in a PDF format that is not searchable.

A useful method of evaluating government Web sites—a 10-point “Transparency Checklist” —has been developed by Sunshine Review, a wiki platform for measuring government Web content against what should be available. As noted on the Sunshine Review Web site (www.SunshineReview.org), “We shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to be an informed citizen.”

Michael Barnhart, Sunshine Review
mbarnhart@sunshinereview.org

Here are a few transparency updates from around the nation.

* ILLINOIS: The Chicago Tribune started an Open Records help desk to display “Strategy, help and stories about getting public information in Illinois”. Good move from the Trib, since Chicago’s Mayor Daley routinely denies FOIA requests.

Another IL piece worth reading is the Mill Creek Times’ analysis of its local government website. It mentions that Mill Creek Special Service Area is “absolutely deficient” when graded on the standards set forth in the Sunshine Review checklist.

* MICHIGAN: The Clare Sentinel published an excellent letter to the editor titled, “Grandmother spearheads transparency effort to put school district check registers online.” The letter demonstrates that school transparency is much easier than most people think. It takes just minutes per day!

* OKLAHOMA: Oklahomans for Responsible Government, a fiscal watchdog group, lamented the lack of county transparency in the Sooner State, and revealed their new transparency initiative regarding school districts.

* TENNESSEE: Governor Phil Bredesen announced a new website, TN.gov, that increases transparency by listing vendor payments and employee travel reimbursements and salaries.

* FEDERAL: President Obama is working to roll back union transparency laws. According to the Heritage Foundation, these regulations make union officials more accountable to union members and deter fraud and embezzlement.

Colorado SB 57, sponsored by Republican state senator Ted Harvey, would have required schools to post their spending reports online in a searchable database. Revolutionary? No. A good idea? You bet.

Unfortunately, Democrats didn’t think so, and it went down in the House Education committee in a party-line vote, 8-5. According to the Independence Institute, education associations contributed the following amounts to the committee members:

*Name of Rep – Total Amount from Education Lobby Organizations – Vote on SB 57
*Randy Baumgardner – $0 – Yes
*Debbie Benefield – $6,975 – No
*Tom Massey – $500 – Yes
*Michael Merrifield – $5,250 – No
*Karen Middleton – $3,125 – No
*Carole Murray – $0 – Yes
*Cherylin Peniston – $4750 – No
*Kevin Priola – $0 – Yes
*Christine Scanlan – $5,000 – No
*Sue Schafer – $5,750 – No
*Ken Summers – $0 – Yes
*Nancy Todd – $4,650 – No
*Judy Solano – $5,750- No

So do you think those contributions made a difference?

This is an embarrassment to Colorado. Shame, shame, shame on the reps that didn’t vote for open government during SUNSHINE WEEK of all times. I am guessing the voters in your districts may reward you with a similar “no” vote in your next election.

You can read all of the twists and turns at Sunshine Review.

More on the education lobby’s strategy against SB 57 at the COST blog.

There were many voiced concerns over lack the lack of transparency in the passing of the California budget agreement according to a LA Times article and KPBS radio interview. During the making of the plan to ameliorate California’s budget crisis, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and five legislative leaders effectively locked out input from other lawmakers and the public.

Democrat state senator Darrell Steinberg said,

“No one likes the secrecy of the big five…it’s not the way the process should happen…”

Republican state senator Roy Ashburn said,

“It’s an abuse of power to have it done in secret, and deliberately so, is unacceptable.”

Emily Rusch, a public transportation advocate at the California Public Interest Research Group said,

“it was very hard to engage in the budget process…”

You can check out information about the California State Budget on Sunshine Review.

Paul Jacob, President of Citizens in Charge, an organization working to preserve and expand initiative and referendum rights, addressed Colorado transparency in his Common Sense column today. I have copied it, with permission, below.

Opaque Transparency

Colorado’s state treasurer, Cary Kennedy, is on the hot seat. When running for office, he promised to make the state’s spending more transparent. He has not followed through.

In a different age, such dilatoriness might have been overlooked. Today, the very medium that makes it easy to report what is happening with taxpayers’ money, the Internet, also makes it easy to pressure delinquent officials.

There are websites. The one calling Kennedy to account is a blog called Colorado Spending Transparency. Or COST.

COST recalls that during his 2006 campaign for Colorado State Treasurer, Kennedy observed that when you buy groceries, the receipt shows what you bought. Kennedy, too, he said, would “show you where your money goes.”

Colorado does post its annual budget online. But the COST blog wants a detailed, searchable database, as fifteen other states have provided.

Representative Don Marostica, who also championed transparency in his 2006 campaign, introduced a bill to require such online itemizing. The bill never made it out of committee. Marostica had planned to re-introduce the bill until Governor Ritter stated in a recent speech that he would work with Treasurer Kennedy and others to put the state’s checkbook online.

COST says doing this will only reveal what the state paid, not necessarily what it paid FOR. COST wants the whole story. And will keep pressing until it gets it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

You can check out information on the Colorado state budget on Sunshine Review.

Kate Campaigne asks from the Illinois Policy Institute’s Open Illinois blog, “Transparency would help inject direly needed sunshine into government spending and shine a light on the pay-to-play politics, corruption, and insider deals swallowing up our state. After this monumental arrest, how can elected officials say no to implementing transparency?”

Good question. There has been the usual parade of outrage from public officials from both sides of the aisle, and a growing call for a special election instead of an appointment (as stated in the IL Constitution now) but no major elected official is talking transparency.

So the real question becomes, who will step up to the plate to take a leadership role in implement the transparency legislation needed? The IL governor’s race will be a crowded event. Candidates: Show IL voters your commitment to them (and all taxpayers) by working to pass comprehensive transparency legislation. The Illinois Policy Institute, Americans for Prosperity Illinois, and For the Good of Illinois have been local champions- seek them out, and get it done.

For non-elected officials: Look here for ideas on how you can help the Sunshine Review Open Government project, and keep your politicians’ feet to the fire. Fighting corruption should be up to every citizen, not just the US Attorney.