Mar
30
2009
0

HB 1293: forbids transparency

HB 1293, the Healthcare Provider Fee, adds as much as a 5.5 percent tax to every patients’ hospital bill and could cost Colorado citizens nearly $600 million per year in increased health care costs according to a new report from Independence Institute Health Care Policy Center Director Linda Gorman.

It’s bad enough that many Colorado legislators have such wanton disregard for the Colorado constitution and the will of the voters by not asking before they raise taxes, but this bill also adds insult to injury.

The legislation forbids hospitals from telling patients how much they are paying.  On page 9 of the 41-page bill is this chilling line:  A HOSPITAL SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY AMOUNT OF THE PROVIDER  FEE AS A SEPERATE LINE ITEM IN ITS BILLING STATEMENTS.

Should any Colorado resident or media outlet want to know how the tax is calculated, well they are out of luck because the legislation forbids that too:

The State Board, in consultation with the Advisory Board,  shall promulgate rules on reports that hospitals shall be required to submit for the state department to calculate the amount of the provider fee.  Notwithstanding the provisions of part 2 of article 72 of title 24, C.R.S., information provided to the State Department pursuant to the section shall be considered confidential and shall not be deemed a public record.

In other words, don’t ask any questions about how much you are paying or how the tax is calculated because it is none of your business.

According to the Greeley Tribune, Republicans tried to amend the bill to make it more transparent but failed.

Written by amy in: Colorado, health care | Tags: ,
Mar
29
2009
1

1288 update

HB 1288, Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act, is scheduled to be heard in the House Appropriations Committee on Friday, April 3.  Public testimony is not taken but concerned citizens can contact members of the committee before the hearing to let them know how they feel. (List of members below)

A couple of points to remember:

The cost of implementing a database seems to be the biggest argument against it.  However the $72,000 fiscal note should not be considered in a vacuum but rather in the context of an investment in state budget cost savings. 

Other states that have embraced spending transparency with an online database have enjoyed tens of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars in savings. For instance, Texas has enjoyed nearly $4 million in cost savings since investing in an online government spending database.  So while yes there is an initial cost, the database more than pays for itself with cost savings. 

This database will help Colorado provide services to taxpayers in a more efficient and cost effective manner.  It also serves as a concrete example of government’s faith in citizens that taxpayers can appreciate and understand the information provided.

Second, COST believes transparency should be in statute even though Governor Ritter says he will implement transparency with an executive order, and COST has praised Governor Ritter for his support of transparency in government.  But the legislature should not abdicate its power and authority to another branch of government.  This is too important to leave to the discretion of the executive branch.  The next governor may not and may decide to exclude the executive branch from open transparent government.

COST will keep readers posted on the progress of 1288.

Colorado House Appropriations Committee Members

mferrandino@yahoo.com;
bob.gardner.house@state.co.us;
repjoeljudd@joeljudd.com;
john.kefalas.house@state.co.us;
andy.kerr.house@state.co.us;
james.kerr.house@state.co.us;
beth.mccann.house@state.co.us;
don@donmarostica.com;
sal.pace.house@state.co.us;
jack.pommer.house@state.co.us;
jim.riesberg.house@state.co.us;
jerry@repsonnenberg.com;
glenn.vaad.house@state.co.us

Mark Ferrandino 303-866-2911
Bob Gardner 303-866-2191 Sponsor
Joel Judd 303-866-2925
John Kefalas 303-866-4569
Andy Kerr 303-866-2923
Jim Kerr 303-866-2939 Sponsor
Beth McCann 303-866-2959
Don Marostica 303-866-2947
Sal Pace 303-866-2968
Jack Pommer 303-866-2780
Jim Riesberg 303-866-2929
Jerry Sonnenberg 303-866-3706 Sponsor
Glenn Vaad 303-866-2943

Mar
28
2009
0

Real meaning of transparency in education

If a picture is worth thousand words, than COST should stop writing and let Benjamin Hummel capture all COST ramblings in cartoon form! Remember, the education lobby killed SB 57 but it claims to support it.  Mr. Hummel illustrates what the education lobby means when it says “we support transparency.”

Written by amy in: Colorado, K-12 Education | Tags: ,
Mar
20
2009
4

No sunshine for Colorado school districts

With some 330 days of sunshine each year, Colorado maybe one of the sunniest states in the Union, but not when it comes to how government spends taxpayer dollars.  Ironically the death of school spending transparency came during the very week that transparency advocates are celebrating national Sunshine Week.

The Marines couldn’t have saved school spending transparency from the education lobby’s financial stranglehold on the House Education Committee.  More than 30 citizens and activists showed up to testify or show support for SB 57. Sources tell COST that some members of the House Education Committee received more that 50 emails and phone calls asking them to say yes to school spending transparency.   Despite overwhelming support for transparency, taxpayers lost; lobbyists won.

The education lobby got the return it wanted on its $41000 investment.   The eight legislators who voted no on SB 57are the same eight legislators that received large campaign contributions during the 2008 election cycle. Those legislators who voted no include Democrat Representatives Debbie Benefield, MIke Merrifield, Karen Middleton, Cherilyn Peniston, Christine Scanlon, Judy Solano, Sue Schafer and Nancy Todd.

Sources told COST that their arguments against the legislation came directly from the education lobby’s talking points.  A couple of common refrains: “We support transparency, just not right now.” Or “We support transparency, just not like this.”

Bruce Caughey, deputy executive director of CASE, confirmed that when he said, ”We are opposed to the bill, but we are not opposed to financial transparency.” 

As the Denver Daily News reported, Caughey went on to say that taxpayers have enough information, “There is already information made available to the public that provides clear information on district budgets.” Apparently taxpayers don’t feel the information is “clear,” because so many showed up to testify in favor of the bill.

Of course, no education lobbying would be complete without invoking an “it’s for the children argument.” Caughey add, “This requirement will be taking away money that could be spent in classrooms.”

One anti-SB 57 legislator made a Ritter-esque suggestion for an “interim study” to find out what people really want, “something meaningful.”  Another Blue Ribbon Commission anyone? COST finds this suggestion a bit baffling because Rep. Amy Stephens and the dozens of citizens who testified were very clear that they want to see expenditures and revenues. 

While COST realizes that the evening went long, Representative Solano’s scolding of citizens who took hours out of their day to testify was unnecessary. She told them that they should not be coming to the state about local issues.  Solano failed to grasp that the only reason taxpayers spent hours at the Capitol, not getting paid to be there, is because local school districts aren’t providing the information.

Because of Rep Solano’s protection of local control, COST assumes that she will vote no on SB 180, which mandates collective bargaining for public safety employees regardless of the will of local voters.  In other words, SB 180 would override the will of Fort Collins and Weld County voters who have defeated attempts to allow collective bargaining for law enforcement.  COST looks forward to Rep Solano’s no vote on SB 180.

And Rep. Middleton asked the Andy Kerr question.  Colorado Transparency Project Amy Oliver explained (again) the difference between public and private entities.  Amy later said that since Kerr and Middleton have a difficult time understanding the difference, next time she is asked the question she will explain the difference between voluntary donations and compulsorary taxation.

Many testified in favor of transparency including Todd Shepherd, Independence Institute investigative reporter.  Todd revealed his findings about Office Depot overcharging school districts and how it relates to Colorado.  Looking at only a six-month window of expenditures,  he found hundreds of thousands of dollars spent with the office supplies retailer. Todd argued that transparency deputizes Coloradans to serve as mini auditors possibly saving school districts thousands of dollars.

While legislators and lobbyists killed the bill, they cannot kill the movement.  COST agrees with Amy as she was quoted in the Denver Daily News. “The transparency train has left the station,” she said. “They (districts) can either be on board and be influential or have a hundred activists putting up their own site using only the information that they find relevant.”

Despite this defeat, we will continue to work with all stakeholders as we move forward with school spending transparency.  We intend to look at expenditures, and let school districts explain the revenue and context.

COST does want to thank those who testified on behalf of transparency (including the tireless Natalie Menten) and those legislators who showed respect for taxpayers and voted yes on SB 57 —  Republican Representatives Ken Summers, Carole Murray, Randy Baumgardner, Tom Massey and Kevin Priola. 

Remember No taxation without information!

Written by amy in: Colorado, K-12 Education, politics |
Mar
19
2009
1

Senate Bill 57 Dies on Party-Line Committee Vote

Sad news tonight, especially for those who sacrificed so much time and energy making their voices heard in favor of financial transparency for schools. At 8:34 local Mountain Time this evening, the Democrat-led House Education Committee killed Senate Bill 57 on an 8-5 party line vote. It’s been a long day, and COST is tired. Expect a postmortem tomorrow.

Mar
18
2009
3

The House Education Committee

On Thursday, March 19, at 1:30 p.m. SB 57 will be heard in the House Education Committee in HCR 0112.  Opponents of transparency have been working hard to get this legislation killed.  Primarily the opposition has come from some school district administrators and their lobbyists.  Officially the Colorado Education Association (the teachers’ union) has taken a neutral position on public school transparency.  

Sources tell COST that the CEA, at the very least, is concerned about SB 57 and the teachers’ union has contributed a lot of money to members of the Education Committee.  One of our intrepid interns pulled numbers from Follow the Money, a “resource on money in state politics”.   Below is a chart of House Education Committee members and the amount of teachers’ unions campaign contributions he or she received during the 2008 election cycle.  COST reported earlier that Committee Chair Mike Merrifield, who received $4250 from the CEA, contacted transparency opponent Glenn Gustafson. Tomorrow we will see how the CEA’s investment pays off.

Follow tomorrow’s hearing with Education Policy Analyst Ben DeGrow on his twitter page.

House Ed Committee Education Contributor Connection Amount
     
Randy Baumgardner none listed n/a
     
Debbie Benefield JEFFERSON COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOC $4,450
  COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $2,525

TOTAL $6,975
     
Tom Massey COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $500

TOTAL $500
     
Michael Merrifield COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $4,250
  PUBLIC EDUCATORS ADVOCATING FOR KIDS $500
  COLORADO FEDERATION OF TEACHERS $500

TOTAL $5,250
     
Karen Middleton COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $2,125
  COLORADO FEDERATION OF TEACHERS $1,000

TOTAL $3,125
     
Carole Murray none listed n/a
     
Cherylin Peniston COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $4,250
  BOULDER VALLEY EDUCATION ASSOC $500

TOTAL $4,750
     
Kevin Priola none listed n/a
     
Christine Scanlan COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $4,250
  COLORADO FEDERATION OF TEACHERS $750

TOTAL $5,000
     
Sue Schafer JEFFERSON COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOC $4,250
  COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $1,000
  COLORADO FEDERATION OF TEACHERS $500

TOTAL $5,750
     
Judy Solano COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $4,250
  COLORADO FEDERATION OF TEACHERS $1,500

TOTAL $5,750
     
Ken Summers none listed n/a
     
Nancy Todd COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOC $4,650

TOTAL $4,650
Mar
18
2009
0

Detroit Public Schools respond

Amy Oliver sent an email to DPS Emergency Financial manager Robert Bobb inquiring about transparency in the Detroit Public School system. 

Amy’s email asked, “Why do you embrace transparency? How did you become convinced that it would help the Detroit Public School system?  How will you pay to put the information online?”

Steven Wasko, Executive Director of the Office of Public Relations, responded:

It is imperative for our success that all constituents are provided the opportunity to be informed, and a true sense of transparency involves not only making all of our actions public but also instilling a sense that all credible feedback is thoroughly reviewed and acted upon.  Engaging our stakeholders, indeed, means making all of our finances, reports, orders and communications public, but that would be nothing but another example of one hand clapping if there are not specific and vital ways for the community to engage in developing an overall vision of 21st Century education for its children.

At thi point in DPS (Detroit Public Schools), we are researching the feasibility of placing our checkbook online.  In response to a constituent question on an anonymous email/hotline that was set up, Emergency Financial manager Robert Bobb has directed our IT department to research and report back on the steps that it would take to achieve this.

Other examples of documents which we immediately placed on our website are requests made to the State of Michigan, and their response.

Mr. Wasko explains how the idea came about (an anonymous email) and why the district embraces transparency but doesn’t address Amy’s question about cost.  COST assumes that if transparency is a priority, then even a district with serious financial issues will figure out to provide expenditures online in an easily accessible format.  It seems that DPS realizes that engaging “stakeholders” will help rather than hinder the struggling district.  Again, COST wishes Detroit Public Schools the best of luck because kids’ futures are at stake.

Mar
16
2009
1

Detroit Public Schools say yes to transparency

COST is impressed with Robert Bobb, the new Fiscal Manager for Detroit Public Schools (DPS).  According to the Detroit Free Press, Bobb “will place its financial records in plain sight, online, so that tax-payers can follow every dollar.”

DPS is a district in financial turmoil with a “shameful” history of record keeping that includes an inability to maintain a proper paper trail for its debts.  Apparently DPS right now owes “at least $72 million in vending services that have been outstanding 30 days or longer.”

Bobb is confident that he can get DPS’s fiscal house in order and bring transparency to the district within the next year.  Bobb’s desire to bring transparency to DPS stands in stark contrast to Colorado’s education establishment.

COST looks forward to tracking transparency in Detroit Public Schools and wishes Colorado’s school districts would make the same kind of commitment.

Mar
15
2009
0

Transparency Husker style

Congratulations Corn Huskers!  Your state beat Colorado to transparency in state government.  In a Wall Street Journal editorial, Nebraska State Treasurer Shane Osborn articulated how and why he led the effort to create NebraskaSpending.com, a searchable, online database that “discloses every aspect of state government spending.”  And Treasurer Osborn did it for a mere $38,000. 

Rather than fearing Nebraskans’ examination of state expenditures, Osborn says, “By allowing the public to examine how its money is spent, we are equipping Nebraskans with great tools to hold their government accountable.”

He acknowledges that sometimes taxpayers will uncovered items “that can’t be explained or that some don’t want made public.” But the Osborn is not defensive.

For example, while setting up NebraskaSpending.com we found a surprising amount of money spent on size 13 boots by the department of corrections. When officials realized their numbers were about to be put online, they updated their expenditures to reveal that the money had actually gone to guard uniforms. Once our site went live, we got calls from other agencies asking to update their numbers. They knew Nebraskans would pay attention.

And Nebraskans did pay attention. Over 400,000 visitors have perused NebraskaSpending.com, spending an average of 20 minutes per visit.

COST hopes one day Coloradans can boast about being beating Nebraska with an even better transparency site.  If HB 1288 passes, then we will.

Mar
13
2009
0

Ten (dollars) for transparency

It’s cheaper than most CORA requests! COST hopes you can spare $10 for transparency.

Because of our success promoting transparency in Colorado, the Independence Institute was awarded a $25,000 challenge grant.  Your gift, no matter what the size, to the Colorado Spending Transparency Project will be matched dollar for dollar.

COST hopes you will consider supporting the Independence Institute’s efforts to advance transparency at every level of government. We’ve achieved a great deal already but our work is just getting started.  We look forward to transforming Colorado government into one that is open and accessible to all taxpayers, not just those who can afford it.  We cannot do it without your help. Please visit our donation page and thank in advance for your support.

Written by amy in: general | Tags: ,

Powered by WordPress | Aeros Theme | TheBuckmaker.com WordPress Themes