Colorado Spending Transparency

Natalie Menten is a hero (heroine to be accurate) to COST.  Her hobby is to make government accountable to the citizens it serves. On her Web site you will find numerous databases on government employees’ salaries, government credit card spending and fees.

She recently added Jeffco School District salaries. This is important information to have when local school districts ask for a tax increase as happened with 3A in Greeley Evans School District Six. (3A went down in flames) Voters wanted to know the salaries of much those asking for more taxpayer money — especially when they are making more than the average voter.

Remember, this is your money.  And then thank Natalie for taking the time and going to the expense to hold government accountable so you can see where your money is going.

The state cannot pay its bills and taxpayers get blamed. And no one asks where did the more than $18 billion in taxpayer dollars go.

The Denver Post reports:

Temporarily short on money, Colorado has declared a fiscal emergency and delayed payments to doctors and clinics taking care of the state’s neediest patients.

The usual suspects are providing the usual excuses.  Governor Bill Ritter’s spokesman Evan Dryer claimed the delay is a “cash flow” problem.  Joint Budget Committee member Senator Moe Keller (D-Wheat Ridge) blamed taxpayers who have asked for an extension on their income taxes and have not made “additional payments to the state.”

COST went to the Governor’s user-unfriendly transparency Web site (TOPs) to see where some of our money went.  Consider the following state expenditures:

• $3,238,437.68 for dues and memberships including various Chambers of Commerce, Colorado State Bar Association, Wine Development Fund and hundreds of other organizations.
• $6,426,999.36 for bank card fees. Question: do taxpayers get the reward points or miles?
• $65,824.78 for interest on late payments.
• $1,285,449.93 for “customer workshops” in places such as Beaver Run Resort.
• $2,841,045.14 in miscellaneous fees and fines. Maybe the state will reimburse taxpayers for parking tickets received near the state capitol for those taxpayers who parked too long at a meter waiting to testify in committee.
• $72,899,996.09 for travel including more than $8 million for non-employee, out-of-state travel and more than $2 million for non-employee, out-of-country travel.

The 2010 Colorado General Assembly passed judgment on 23 pieces of legislation, including one joint resolution, that claim some type of transparency benefit.  Seventeen passed.

Some were great such as Rep. Amy Stephens’ bill requiring transparency for gifts, grants and donations that pay for special interest government and Rep BJ Nikkel’s bill requiring more detailed information be made available on the state’s disappointing transparency Web site called Transparency Online Project (TOP).

Some bills were bad. HB 1330, the transparency trojan horse that supporters called the All Payer Health Care Database, was particularly bad.

Some bills were acceptable but not great because they bumped bills that were much better.  The Public School Financial Transparency Act and Smart Government fall into this category.

For a more detailed wrap up of how transparency fared during the 2010 legislative session visit iVoices.org to hear our transparency podcast.

COST was having some fun searching Colorado’s transparency Web site (TOPs).  We discovered the Department of Education has spent $747,315.17 of taxpayer money with over 200 different vendors in fiscal year 2010 for “customer workshops.” A significant portion went to various hotels and restaurants including Vail Resorts, Beaver Run Resorts (again), Benchmark Conference Resort, the Warwick Hotel, Evergreen Alliance Golf Ltd, La Casita Patio Cafe and Rolling Fork Grill.  And those are just a few.

The expenditures do beg a few questions:  how did the real customers — Colorado K-12 students and taxpayers — benefit from this spending?  Higher graduation rates? Higher achievement scores?

Transparency: quality or state of being clear, transparent; also frank, candid, free from deceit.

COST believes that most Coloradans have come to understand transparency in government as detailed expenditure and revenue information.

With those definitions in mind, it is laughable that the Colorado State Treasurer’s Office called its latest interactive endeavor “Tax Tracks” a transparency Web site.  The site is long on generalizations and pretty pie charts but short on details.  In fact, the site even admits it provides nothing more than an “approximation” of taxes paid and where those dollars end up in the state’s coffers.

Even more insulting is that the site is designed to guilt taxpayers into believing they should pay more. Enter $50,000 in annual income and an “approximate” tax breakdown appears.  Click on the link for K-12 education.  Treasurer Cary Kennedy, architect of Amendment 23, explains how much taxpayers spend on public eduction, and using a thoroughly debunked statistic, she admonishes Coloradans for not spending more:

Colorado ranked 49th in spending on pre-school through twelfth grade public education measured as a percent of personal income in fiscal year 2006-07.

Under “Gasoline Tax” visitors discover this gem:

The gasoline tax has not been adjusted since 1991. From 1991-2008, it lost 40% of its purchasing power adjusted for inflation (Denver-Boulder consumer price index).

Translation: Coloradans don’t pay enough in state gasoline tax.

However, Colorado’s 22 cents per gallon tax is close to the national average.

The interactive site also lets visitors vote on whether the amount paid for K-12 education and other areas of government is the “right amount”, “too little”, or “too much.”

Furthermore, these state taxes aren’t paid in a vacuum.  According to the Tax Foundation, Coloradans didn’t see Tax Freedom Day, “the day when Americans finally have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year”, until April 12 last year. The state ranked 16th highest in the country.

Tax Tracks makes a mockery of transparency.  Just because Treasurer Kennedy calls it “transparency” doesn’t mean it really is.  In fact the only transparency in this Web site is its motive to convince Colorado taxpayers that they should pay more.

Facing substantial budget cuts, Colorado’s K-12 education establishment may have to rethink how it spends money courtesy of the transparency movement we have championed.  Using transparency Web sites from Jeffco and Douglas County Schools as well as information from Denver Public Schools, the Denver Post found “found millions of dollars being spent with limited oversight on food, travel and other discretionary items.”

Among the expenses buried in the thousands of transactions: $270 for scented pencils for a Douglas County school, $1,228 for books at a Denver school from a company that uses color-scheme psychology, and $4,113 for doughnuts and burritos for breakfast meetings at a Denver high school

In response to the investigation, one school district already has changed its policies on spending. With ”so much charged in food, entertainment, travel and other discretionary items” Denver Public Schools “issued new rules for credit-card holders in response to The Post’s findings.”

For anyone interested in bringing transparency to their school district, Independence Institute policy analyst Ben DeGrow’s paper “What Should District Financial Transparency Look Like?” is a must read.

Residents of the Poudre School District in Fort Collins realize that transparency means more than financial.  The Fort Collins Coloradoan and some taxpayers are demanding more transparency when it comes to school district policies.  

According to Coloradoan editor Bob Moore, the district’s deliberate withholding of information about the arrests of two employees was unlike anything he had ever seen and ”has prompted the Coloradoan to investigate the issue and compile the ongoing coverage regarding transparency in Fort Collins area schools…”

Moore also stated that the trust between the school district and the community has eroded.  Facing a nearly $12 billion budget shortfall, the district is contemplating asking voters for a property tax increase this fall.  Poudre School District need only look east to Greeley Evans School District 6 to see how voters feel about giving more of their money to a school district that doesn’t respect taxpayers enough to share information whether its financial or policy related.

Check out the Coloradoan’s extensive coverage of the Poudre School District and transparency.  Also check out Transparency Czarina Amy Oliver Cooke’s podcast on iVoices with Bob Moore.

Some Colorado school districts aren’t waiting for the General Assembly to mandate financial transparency.  Greeley Evans School District Six in Northern Colorado has placed its check reigstry online.

But most impressive is what Colorado’s largest school district Jeffco Public Schools has provided for taxpayers on its financial transparency Web page.  Interested taxpayers set the date parameters, and then search Jeffco expenditures by vendor, account number, fund or department number.  The search results can be easily downloaded into an individual xcel file.  For instance, in just a matter of minutes COST determined that Jeffco spent $313,199.46 on meals/refreshments from July 1 to December 31, 2009.   It’s not up to COST to make a judgement on those expenditures.  That is the responsibility of Jeffco taxpayers.

We will however make a judgement on Jeffco’s transparency Web site, and we have yet to find a better one in the country.  COST believes Jeffco is on the cutting edge of transparency.  We encourage other school districts to take Jeffco’s lead and provide the same type of detailed financial transparency. 

The state of Colorado should take lessons as well.  Governor Bill Ritter’s transparency Web site TOP is an embarrassment.

The Greeley Tribune, in its Sunday house editorial, acknowledges the role that transparency played in the recent defeat of 3A, a massive property tax increase for Greeley Evans School District 6.

A lack of transparency in its financial records was one of the reasons some cited for voting against the recent mill levy override. It became evident during that election that there is a significant mistrust between the district and some of its residents over how the district is spending its money, and if it is making the best use of the funds it now has available.

The editorial also recognizes that taxpayers have a right to know how their money is spent.

We believe there is merit to the idea of government doing all it can to disclose as much information as possible about its operations and finances. As taxpayers, we have a right to know how governmental entities are spending our money and the decisions that affect the services we receive.

The newspaper’s previous anti-transparency position has puzzled COST.  We’ve never encountered a news organization that didn’t want more information from government. COST welcomes the Tribune’s enlightened opinion. 

But what COST really appreciates is the editorial’s first line: “Transparency has become the political battle cry of the year.” We, along with many others, have worked hard to make it so.

Taxpayers in Greeley will be happy to know that the city has placed online a wealth of information. On the city’s new transparency page visitors will find everything from the employee pay schedule to financial reports including the check registry.   The city even included a link with information on where to direct an open records request.

COST thanks the city of Greeley for respecting taxpayers.  Greeley Evans School District 6?