Michigan budget shortfalls: could transparency help?

Michigan’s constitution requires that the state government operate with a balanced budget.

But Michigan legislators returned from a two week break without a plan on how to address the state’s more than $300 million budget shortfall for the current year. Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) is seemingly waiting for Congress to revive a measure that would give Michigan $560 million in additional federal money to help provide health care for the poor. Republicans are not counting on the money, instead planning more budget cuts.

The Michigan Senate already has voted to erase a projected shortfall of $1.3 billion in the state’s general fund through spending cuts and savings in the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, but Democrats who control the House oppose many of those measures.

It’s a tough job, but legislators are compensated for their troubles, and compensated well. Michigan lawmakers earn the second highest salary of state legislators, $79,650, next only to California.

However, despite all of the cost-cutting benefits of going online, Michigan has yet to post its check register. Unlike other transparency projects, posting Michigan’s check register online would apparently come at no cost because of the way that the state deals with accounting.

Involving citizens in the process by taking steps to become more proactively transparent won’t solve all of Michigan’s problems, but it would be a great first step in budget discipline. For example, the information that Michigan legislators are the second-highest paid in the nation is invaluable. People have a right to that information. There’s nothing that increases prudence like public scrutiny.

Michigan calls for transparency on its film incentive program

The Michigan House Tax Committee is sending SB 796 and 889 to the house for consideration. The bills would bid for more transparency about the Film Incentive Program, asking that information about jobs, film company expenditures and state rebates to companies to the Legislature, public and media be made public.

The Mackinac Center testified on the bills, which were proposed after the organization released a story about the Hangar42 deal. The Hangar42 studio, which was previously valued at $9.8 million, was recently bought by taxpayers for $40 million. The state has refused to answer questions about the large increase in price and the deal remains under scrutiny as the bills are considered.

“Privacy” as information blocking: Howell schools and union e-mails

Chetly Zarko, a Michigan citizen, filed a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request in 2007 asking for thousands of Howell teacher e-mails in order to investigate the occurence of taxpayer-funded lobbying.

The Michigan Court of Appeals determined in January that the messages are not public records under the state Freedom of Information Act, overturning a decision from a Livingston County judge in 2008.

The court’s logic is stunning, stating that the nonexistence of e-mail at the time of the drafting of the public records law confuses the issue. Although e-mail did not exist at the time, the spirit of the public records law remains the same. The Basic Intent of the law reads:

The Freedom of Information Act regulates and sets requirements for the disclosure of public records by all “public bodies” in the state.

No where is there a mention of the type of mediums this information will be created or sent through, nor does it have a paper-specific definition of “public record,” nor is there any reason to believe that new technology will confuse the law or create a need for clarification. The law is clear: public bodies must disclose public records.

The Howell Education Association teachers’ union leadership stated that the case is not an issue of open government, but one of privacy:

“We believe the protection of privacy rights is fundamental to the American way, and we were confident our understanding of the law would be upheld [...] Rights of this sort are too important to leave undefended.”

The HEA filed suit against Howell Public Schools in 2007 after the district released some of the e-mails Zarko requested. Apparently, the content in the e-mails that makes the HEA so sensitive to privacy matters relates to “union matters.”

Privacy in the lives of private citizens is important. But when it comes to employees of the state, there is no privacy—there is either secrecy or transparency. If the e-mails are to be considered private, then they should have happened outside of the teachers’ working hours and from a non-work address.

The interests of taxpayers are more important than the interests of a school union. Here’s hoping Chetly Zarko’s appeal is heard through ears more sympathetic to the public good and open government.

Transparency news from around the nation

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.

Education Action Group video

The Education Action Group works to shed light on school-board union contract negotiations. It currently has two similar videos up at the EAG website. Go pick your favorite. I voted for this one:

Union sues to stop Education Action Group’s FOIA request

The Michigan education unions have a terrible problem. You see, education unions prefer to operate in the dark, with no real oversight, and no actual transparency or accountability to the taxpayers they rely on for jobs. It’s kind of one of those deals that if everyone gets paid, nobody gets hurt.

The folks involved in the Education Action Group (EAG) think it’s high time to turn the lights on to see how tax dollars are spent in schools, how funds might be maximized, and to bring it all out in the open- teacher pay vs. union negotiator pay, contract negotiations, benefits agreements, political plays by unions… all of that juicy stuff. They’ve caused quite a scuffle, which is a good thing if you pay into the Michigan school system.

Recently, EAG filed a FOIA to obtain emails from Wayne-Westland Education Association president Nancy Strachan’s taxpayer-funded e-mail account. EAG is curious to find out the role the union is playing in a recall election of a couple of school board members that aren’t giving the union all they want, and also information on a recent illegal strike. Today, the Michigan Education Association filed a lawsuit against the school district to stop them from releasing the emails.

Filing a lawsuit to stop transparency? So predictable. Opening up school spending to parents, vendors, watchdog groups, and taxpayers? Now that’s the (high) road less traveled. Michigan Education Association, I suggest you look here for ideas.

To find out how to file Freedom of Information Requests (and really, all things FOIA), go to the WikiFOIA portal on Sunshine Review.

Waiting on transparency for Reform Michigan Now

The Detroit News yesterday questioned the Reform Michigan Now ballot committee for refusing to come forward with the groups sponsoring its proposition. A PowerPoint presentation on a union website suggests who these backers are- the Michigan Dem Party and organized labor. A spokesman for Reform Michigan Now stated its financial backers would be revealed in August, or only when legally required.

From the Detroit News:

To date, backers of the effort and Democratic Party leaders have refused to say who wrote the controversial proposal and who is bankrolling it [though p]arts of the plan definitely favor Democrats over Republicans.
…
“To the extent that this document is what it appears to be, it leaves little doubt that the (ballot proposal) is a partisan power play,” according to Paul Kersey, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Midland-based free-market oriented think tank that found the PowerPoint presentation on UAW Region 1-C Web site. The presentation, whose title page says “Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to help Democrats,” is no longer on the Web site.
…
“Transparency of who is leading the effort is important for voters, which is not publicly known right now,” Richard Blouse Jr., president and CEO of the Detroit chamber, said in a press release. “The business community certainly recognizes the need for reforms in state government, especially when it comes to solving the problems of chronic budget deficits. However, it’s important to be up front about these reforms so they can be fully vetted through open debate.”

Call me crazy, but shouldn’t transparency be part of any real reform measure? If this proposal is really about smaller, smarter government, give us full, factual information on who is crafting and sponsoring it and let the results benefit TAXPAYERS, not the Democrat Party.

See more on Reform Michigan Now here and here.