Colorado Spending Transparency

The Governor’s latest shell game to balance the budget is yet another reason why Coloradans desperately need full transparency. 

The state of Colorado isn’t really spending less money.  According to Legislative Council staff the total FY 2009-2010 Colorado state budget will be just under $18.7 billion — and that’s after the ”cuts.”  The total FY 08-09 budget was roughly $18.7 billion.  No doubt some programs will see real cuts from last year, but total spending for Colorado essentially will be even with last year. 

Some of the “cuts” will require the Colorado General Assembly to pass legislation in order to balance the budget because the money comes from dozens of cash accounts.  One piece of legislation the General Assembly will have to pass will affect HB 09-1293, the secret sick tax.  

From what sources have told COST, Colorado’s share of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allows the state to take money from the hospital provider fee pot and use it to balance the general fund.  The “fees” paid by sick people will remain the same.  A certain percentage of those “fees” would be used to alleviate the General Fund (GF) deficit while federal funds would make up the difference. 

If this seems problematic, it should.  Fees don’t go into the general fund, taxes do.  Increasing taxes requires a vote of the people, but the secret sick tax was passed by the Colorado General Assembly not by voter approval.  Also, we don’t remember “balancing the budget and providing a cash infusion for the general fund” as arguments for the secret sick tax.

According to legislative sources, Ritter needs legislation to use HB09-1293 funds to balance the budget.  What Coloradans need is transparency.  No wonder Ritter resisted it.

Transparency shouldn’t cost this much.  Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay anything to see how their money is being spent.

Independence Institute investigative reporter and CompleteColorado.com editor Todd Shepherd discusses how one government entity wants to charge him $55 per hour to fulfill his Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request.

“..we are a board very concerned about transparency and oversight — about letting our constituency know what it is we are doing,” Greeley Evans District 6 school board member Judy Kron said at a meeting last night.

Really?

Perhaps Kron should read COST.  Then she would know that her fellow school board member Bob Stack testified against school spending transparency just a few months ago.

The Greeley school board voted last night to ask taxpayers to shell out an additional $16 million for textbooks, academic programs and buses.  The question will be on the ballot in November.

While the school board won’t provide taxpayers with detailed spending information, the board did approve a resolution to create an “accountability committee” charged with monitoring and reporting how the additional tax dollars are spent.

According to the Greeley Tribune print edition, Kron went on to say:

It would be very nice if we could say ‘trust us,’ and you would do so.  This isn’t an age of elected officials being trusted just because we are elected officials. So we want to do all we can to assure you that we will spend the dollars as you have asked us to.

Point of clarification — the school board is the one doing the asking, not taxpayers.

COST translation on Greeley District 6 tax hike: More tax dollars. More bureaucracy. No transparency.

COST advice to district residents: No taxation without information.

Boulder city government has an expanding waistline. The Daily Camera reports that “Boulder taxpayers shelled out more than $230,100 for government food last year, representing a 13 percent increase over 2007 and 19 percent over 2006 food expenses.”

The paper offered further explanation:

The costs are for a wide range of snacks and meals for employees, officials and volunteers, including: $64,700 for boards and commissions; $50,800 for promotions, retirement parties and employee recognition; $25,200 for training; $21,400 for coffee and bottled water; $18,500 for public meetings and community forums; and $4,600 for traveling employees.

But apparently the Boulder Planning Board is looking out for taxpayers’ money.

Susan Honse, clerk to the Planning Board, said that group has taken the charge to reduce its food costs seriously. While the board used to go out to restaurants before meetings, she said, it has decided in the past year to order mostly take-out and forego special beverages.

“They get ice water,” Honse said. “They love their water.”

COST commends members of the planning board for willingly sacrificing “special beverages” in order to save money.  Hopefully it will be enough to save the libraries.

This situation reminds us of something that transparency activist Natalie Menten says, ”it becomes very easy to spend someone else’s money, unless that someone is watching.”

Boulder needs transparency.