Colorado Spending Transparency

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.

Taxpayers sponsored commuting for state employees will be a thing a of past if State Representative Kent Lambert and State Senator Bill Cadman get their way.  Lambert and Cadman are the prime sponsors of HB10-1287, legislation “concerning the use of state-owned vehicles for commuting purposes.”

If passed the bill would put an end to “commuting unless the job description of an officer or employee of a state agencies includes the provision of public health, safety, or emergency response service outside of business hours.” This bill could save the state more $3 million, but it has been assigned to the killing committee, a.k.a. State, Veterans and Military Affairs.

State Representative and Joint Budget Committee member Kent Lambert wants to put the brakes on state employees using taxpayer funded vehicles for their personal commute to and from work.  The Associated Press quoted Lambert,  ”Nobody else in state government is getting a free ride to work, and they shouldn’t be doing it either.”  

Following up on a COST discovery about the state’s fleet vehicles, Lambert plans to introduce legislation to eliminate ”Gov. Bill Ritter’s fleet vehicle program and bar the use of state-owned vehicles for tax-free commuting unless it contributes to public safety.”

What’s interesting is the state’s response to Lambert’s legislation. 

Julie Postlethwait, spokeswoman for the Department of Personnel and Administration, which oversees the state fleet, said department heads decide who gets a state vehicle and the department has no control over the decision. She said the department has been reviewing fleet rules for a year and tried to cut back on the program.

‘It’s a program we offer, and we can’t force other departments to cut back,’ she said.

Raises taxes? You bet.  Tell departments to “cut back” on employees using taxpayer-funded vehicle for their personal commute? No way.

Another aspect of transparency allows the public enough time to review and comment on legislation.  Both Governor Bill Ritter and President Barack Obama show the same lack of respect for those paying the bills.  We don’t even get to review the bills that affect our lives and wallets.

Candidate Obama promised that the public would be given five days to review and comment on any legislation before he signed it into law.  Cato has documented how President Obama repeatedly has broken the hearts of transparency advocates. 

That same habit of rushing a bill through the legislature is happening here in Colorado.  Whether you agree with SB10-36, the “teacher tracking bill,” or not, the public should be given more than 48 hoursto read, review and comment on legislation before it is signed by the Governor Ritter or any other governor for that matter. 

This is especially true since SB 36 was passed with the “Safety Clause,” which says: “The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety.”  In other words, the legislature has decided the public cannot challenge the bill.  This is a classic example of safety clause abuse so common in the Colorado General Assembly but taken to a new level since the public wasn’t given time to review and comment.

Our transparency Czarina Amy Oliver Cooke is a mom so we hear lots of parenting stories.  Right now, President Barack Obama looks like the over promising parent who constantly under delivers.  While American voters are like the kids who aren’t buying the falsehoods and simply roll their eyes every time Barack Obama utters the word “transparency.”

According to Breitbart TV, Obama has made no fewer than eight promises for transparency in health care reform negotiations.  Those promises ring hollow.  Politico reports:

President Barack Obama and congressional Democratic leaders agreed Tuesday to forgo a formal conference committee for reconciling the Senate and House health care bills, according to three Democratic congressional aides.

The decision means that the White House, Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will attempt to reach an agreement through private negotiations with key lawmakers.

No C-SPAN. No TV cameras. No internet streaming. No opposition party. Once again…No transparency.

Apparently three members of the Greeley Evans School District 6 school board still have little respect for taxpayers.  According to the Greeley Tribune, in a split decision, the school board voted down a modest transparency proposal from new board member Brett Reese.  Reese’s proposal would have required the district to post on-line every transaction over $1000. 

Opposing board members — Mark Hinze, Judy Kron and Linda Trimberger — don’t think taxpayers are smart enough to understand the information:

 Dissenting board members worried about the resources that the district would expend in collecting such data and about whether those not associated with the district would be able to make sense of the documents — especially without seeing how the expenditures fit into the district’s plans.

It seems that some members of the school board still haven’t learned their lesson.  Just last month, voters overwhelmingly opposed 3A, a $16 million tax increase, in part because the district has not been transparent with how it spends taxpayer money.

The good news is two other board members agreed with Reese.  Taxpayers can thank Bob Stack, previously cited on this blog as an opponent of transparency, and new board member Doug Kershaw.

If you would like to contact school board members, information is listed below:

President Bruce Broderius

bbroderius@greeleyschools.org

970-353-4793

VP Linda Trimberger

ltrimberger@greeleyschools.org

970-330-2159

Sec/Treasurer Robert Stack

rstack@greeleyschools.org

970-351-6971

Director Mark Hinze

mhinze@greeleyschools.org

970-353-3003

Director Doug Kershaw

dkershaw@greeleyschools.org

970-397-9318

Director Judy Kron

jkron@greeleyschools.org

970-330-7163

Director Brett Reese

breese@greeleyschools.org

970-397-9322

Governor Bill Ritter cuts funding for Higher Education and eliminates tax credits for seniors to balance Colorado’s budget.  Yet according to the Associated Press, Ritter spends millions lobbying governmentfor programs taxpayers can’t afford.  COST’s own Amy Oliver Cooke and champion of taxpayers Rep Kent Lambert are quoted in the article. 

If taxpayers want to investigate further on the Governor’s transparency Web site TOP, don’t waste your time.  Lobbying expenditures aren’t available – even in the aggregate.

Colorado’s Future, a group that wants to make the citizen’s initiative process more difficult, will be hosting a meeting in Greeley on December 1.  According to Chairman Bob Tointon, some 500 community leaders and elected officials from the Greeley area have been invited to participate in the 3 hour meeting, which he hopes will lead to a “consensus” about constitutional reform.

According to a Greeley Tribune article, the group hopes to appeal to the grassroots in order to win voter approval for a ballot measure possibly as early as next fall.

There’s one problem.  The grassroots aren’t invited.  This is an invitation only event.  The Tribune writes: “Because it is by invitation only, the meeting is not open to the public.”

COST thinks this may be a violation of Colorado’s Sunshine Law which states:

(d) “State public body” means any board, committee, commission, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, decision-making, or formally constituted body of any state agency, state authority, governing board of a state institution of higher education including the regents of the university of Colorado, a nonprofit corporation incorporated pursuant to section 23-5-121 (2), C.R.S., or the general assembly, and any public or private entity to which the state, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the state public body.
(2) (a) All meetings of two or more members of any state public body at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.
(b) All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.

Our guess is that with an invitation list of 500, there will be more than 3 elected County Commissioners, City Council members and/or state legislators.  If that’s the case, then we’ll be there too because transparency is more than just how government spends our money.  It’s about open government in all areas.

Apparently the state provides $500 lunches and taxpayers don’t need to know about them according to State Controller David McDermott.

The Denver Post reports that State Rep. BJ Nikkel, sponsor of the Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act, accuses McDermott of violating the spirit of the law, violating taxpayer trust and violating transparency.

It’s easy to see Rep Nikkel’s point when McDermott is the information gatekeeper and drops gems like this: “‘We really don’t need people to search for the $500 (lunch). We need them to know what’s really happening with their government.’”

The point of transparency is that it is not up to McDermott to decide how much information taxpayers need.  It is up to taxpayers, and they want detailed financial information.

McDermott also cites an old computer system as to why he can’t provide detailed information.  Seems funny that a state like Colorado on the cutting edge of green technology can’t compete with dozens of other states that show their taxpayers how their money is spent.

COST learned that the $800,000 plus Colorado paid to the Bawmann Group on behalf of the Departments of Health Care Financing and Human Services was for marketing and not crisis communication.  According to Brad Bawmann, head of the Bawmann Group, services provided, mostly to Human Services, included “promoting the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Campaign (www.coloradodads.com), LEAP, Long Term Care and other social marketing campaigns. It included direct advertising costs for those campaign.”

It is not the role of COST to judge the merits of expenditures.  We leave that to the taxpayers of Colorado and legislators.   However, in order for taxpayers to make informed decisions, they must have information.  Aggregated information with no context is unacceptable.  Those spending taxpayer dollars need to provide context that includes a performance outcome.  Answer the question:  How do taxpayers benefit from each expenditure?  To bring it back to the Bawmann Group, what benefit did Colorado taxpayers receive for their $800,000 expenditure?

Next week COST will be reveiwing the actual invoices and contracts between the Bawmann Group and the state of Colorado.  We will report back to you the specifics and attempt to determine taxpayer benefit.

We appreciate Brad Bawmann contacting us and his quick response to questions raised in our most recent post.