Colorado Spending Transparency

Why does state government spend our tax dollars to advertise? Is it in competition with the private sector for customers? Worse than using our money to advertise programs that cost us money, is the fact that it is way too difficult to find out details about how and why the money was spent.

Channel 7 and Call 7 investigators are the latest to discover what we at COST and citizen auditors already know, the Ritter administration does not embrace transparency. In the case of Channel 7, investigators simply inquired about advertising expenses for DORA but getting the information not so simple.

The state Department of Regulatory Agencies has spent more than $200,000 to advertise their state agency, but when CALL7 Investigators wanted to look into the agency the staff put up roadblocks, including trying to charge $40,000 to look at records.

DORA isn’t the only department spending money on advertising. According to the Transparency Online Project, the state has spent $764,024.72 on advertising for fiscal year 2011, which began on July 1, 2010. That’s more than $16,000 per day. This begs several questions including why is state advertising? What is the state advertising? How does advertising benefit taxpayers? And most importantly, why won’t some departments such as DORA explain the expenditures?

COST has inquired about advertising spending for other agencies and did not encounter the road blocks that Call 7 investigators did. Still we have yet to determine if all advertising actually benefits Colorado taxpayers. It certainly benefits those companies that get the advertising contracts.

Can a governor get a do-over for a veto?

In light of recent news reports about the state’s “revenue” shortfall, COST wonders if Governor Bill Ritter is wishing he could take a mulligan for his veto of HB 1287, a bipartisan bill that would have limited the use of state vehicles for personal commuting.  According to the fiscal note it could have saved the state as much as $3 million.

The Denver Post reports again today that the state is short on taxpayer dollars, which it calls “revenue,” in part because personal income tax collections fell below predicted levels.  As a result, the state will begin the new fiscal year on July 1 nearly $72 million in the red forcing Ritter to developing a plan to cut spending:

That plan, likely to be implemented in August, could include furlough days for state employees and additional cuts to health care and public schools.

The fleet vehicle bill wouldn’t have been a game changer, but it certainly could have reduced the total amount of red ink.

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.

In an email to a legislative staffer, State Representative John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins) directed her to use taxpayer-funded resources to send out what looks to be a fundraising invitation for Greater Good, a project of The Progress Group an organization with a motto: “Connecting Business & Community for the Greater Good.”

According to The Progress Group Web site:

The Progress Group provides strategic planning and business and policy development in support of clean energy, sustainability and social justice issues. We focus on mobilizing triple bottom line companies to engage in the policy process – at the federal, state and local level – around these issues. And to accelerate change, we help develop partnerships among public agencies, private companies, unions and non-profits. We support organizations launch and then scale their innovative triple bottom line business ideas, sustainable products and policies into the broader marketplace.

Richard Eidlin, founder of The Progress Group, has been “active in politics for years” according to the CORE (Connected Organizations for a Responsible Economy) Web site where Eidlin sits on the Board of Directors:

As a veteran in the environmental and renewable energy industries, Richard served as National Business Outreach Director for the Apollo Alliance; consulted to Earth Day USA and has been an officer in several national solar energy companies. Active in politics for years, Richard co-directed the Colorado Clean Tech for Obama campaign and advised candidate (and now Colorado Governor) Bill Ritter on renewable energy issues in 2006.

So Rep John Kefalas directed taxpayer resources to promote a leftist organization whose founder clearly supports Democrat candidates, which Kefalas is as well.

Currently, some state employee can use taxpayer-funded vehicles for personal commuting to and from work. Last year the Parole Department spent more than $1 million to purchase over 60 new hybrid sedans during “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression” that saw the state raise taxes and fees and take more handouts from the federal government so that Parole employees could “ride share” to and from work.

As a result of this questionable use of taxpayer funds, Rep. Kent Lambert and Sen. Bill Cadman sponsored legislation to curb the abuse. House Bill 10-1287, “Concerning the use of a state-owned motor vehicle for commuting purposes” passed both the House and Senate but could not escape Governor Bill Ritter’s veto pen.

In a letter to the House of Representatives, Ritter explains why:

the category of employees who are exempt from the reimbursement requirement is too narrow.  Under this bill, a large number of state employees who are required to use a state-owned vehicle as an essential tool for performing their jobs would be financially penalized.  As a result of imposing this financial burden, it would be harder to hire and retain employees in these positions that are vital to the health and safety of the public.

Vetoing this bill does not prevent DPA or other agency heads from continually reviewing the use of state vehicles for commuting purposes and modifying the program in a measured way.  But this bill, however well-intentioned, sweeps too broadly and at too great a cost to public safety and the efficient delivery of essential state services.

Accordingly, I have vetoed this bill.

The Governor is correct, vetoing HB 10-1287 “does not prevent DPA or other agency heads from continually reviewing the use of state vehicles for commuting purposes and modifying the program in a measured way.” Problem is agency heads aren’t doing their job, which is why Rep. Kent Lambert and Sen. Bill Cadman ran the legislation in the first place.

Another problem with the veto is that the estimated $3 million in cost saving will have to be found elsewhere in the budget.  After passage in the Senate, COST reported via the Colorado New Agency:

An honest and humorous comment came from Senator Pat Steadman, who “congratulated Cadman on getting his ‘lead balloon to fly.’” He wanted the estimated $3 million in savings to the state.

“I was scrounging through the sofa cushions looking for spare change for some long bill (budget) amendments and this is one of the places I was looking to – the savings in this bill.”

So state employees still get to enjoy a free ride, while taxpayers pick up the budget shortfall.

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.

Colorado News Agency reports good news for taxpayers and bad news for state employees who used state vehicles for personal commuting. According to CNA:

Senate lawmakers drove home the point today that state employees using state owned vehicles should reimburse the government anytime the vehicle is driven for personal use.

The measure under consideration would delineate between personal and official state use of vehicles.

House Bill 1287, once characterized as a ‘lead balloon that wouldn’t float’ by its sponsor in the Senate, Republican Bill Cadman of Colorado Springs, passed unopposed in the Senate by voice vote.  A final roll call vote will be taken on HB 1287 Wednesday, the final day of the 2010 legislative session.

COST first reported on state employees using taxpayer-financed vehicles for free rides last January at very beginning of the legislative session. Taxpayers owe a debt of gratitude to State Representative Kent Lambert and Senator Cadman for continuing the fight even when they did not think the bill would “fly.”

An honest and humorous comment came from Senator Pat Steadman, who “congratulated Cadman on getting his ‘lead balloon to fly.’” He wanted the estimated $3 million in savings to the state.

“I was scrounging through the sofa cushions looking for spare change for some long bill (budget) amendments and this is one of the places I was looking to – the savings in this bill.”

Steadman also acknowledged the need for ride share reform.

The final vote on HB 1287 will be Wednesday, the last day of the legislative session.

Colorado’s Future, a group that wants to make the citizens’ initiative process more difficult, provided testimony yesterday on its manufactured “consensus” in support of SJR10-003, a measure that if approved by voters will curb Coloradans’ ability to amend the constitution.

At a hearing in the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee meeting, Brenda Morrison of Colorado’s Future bragged that the results of its community meetings show a “remarkable consensus” to limit citizens’ initiative rights.

The problem is how they achieved the “remarkable consensus.” The meetings were by invitation only and not open to the public.  In Greeley, the host committee had a preconceived outcome. COST reported last fall:

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.”

Colorado’s Future sent invitations to “key civic leaders” with the following subjective “characteristics”:

• Being trusted and respected in the community.
• Demonstrating a commitment to working with others to solve problems. Demonstrating a commitment to giving back to their community.
• Being well-known in the community.
• Demonstrating a willingness to roll up their sleeves and make positive change happen within the community.
• Collectively, the group represented much of the diversity of the community in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and profession.

Transparency Czarina Amy Oliver Cooke crashed the Greeley meeting since she didn’t get an invitation.

According to Cooke the meeting lacked diversity of thought and wasn’t an honest representation of Greeley’s political philosophy. Even though Republicans significantly outnumber Democrats in Weld County, they did not in the meeting. The political breakdown showed 44 percent Democrat and 38 percent Republican, hardly reflective of the community. (NOTE: Colorado’s Future’s Statewide Summary transposed the political breakdown numbers in Greeley.)

Also, many of “civic leaders” at the meeting supported and were actively involved in 3A, the Greeley Evans School District 6 mill levy override.  While almost no openly active opponents received an invitation. Yet, the District 6 community overwhelming rejected the massive tax increase. Again, the meeting was not reflective of the community.

According to Cooke and other attendees the questions were designed to manufacture a “consensus” and when those hosting the meeting didn’t get the answers they wanted, they simply ignored the response and went on to the next question.

Also, complete information was not presented.  When discussing the number of signatures required to get a measure on the ballot the hosts kept saying petitioners only need 74,000 signatures.  What presenters failed to mention is that those signatures must be valid.  Those who gather signatures know they need at least double the required amount to ensure enough valid ones.

In Greeley at least, the “remarkable consensus” was the result of the invitation list, the questions and how they were presented.

According to citizen activist Natalie Menten who testified against SJR 003, neither she nor Colorado Union of Taxapyers president Marty Nielson, who also testified in opposition, had ever heard of Colorado’s Future despite claims from the group that it conducted public meetings with over 1000 “key civic leaders.” Although supporter and Committee Chairman Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) had.

None of this is surprising.  It was all part of the “unimaginative failure” that was the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission on which Mrs. Cooke and Mrs. Nielson served and Senator Heath was the chairman.

The resolution boasting ginned-up “remarkable consensus” passed out of the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee.

The White House press corps finally gets the joke…and now knows that it is on them.

In a story about why reporters are unhappy with the Obama administration, Politico writes: [Robert] Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”

Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.

Coloradans are just a senate vote and Governor’s signature away from losing complete control over who has access to their private medical records.  On Friday, HB 1330 the All Payer Database passed out of the Senate Appropriations committee along a party line vote and is headed to the full Senate.

In a March press release Independence Institute Health Care Policy Center Director Linda Gorman, author of “Bill Summary: HB10-1330, the All-Payer Database: A Transparency Trojan Horse” warned:

that the legislation grants unlimited power to the Executive Director of Health Care Policy and Financing to mandate the collection of any health care data, to conduct audits, to give the data to third parties without seeking permission, and to impose unlimited fines for refusing to provide data to the database.

Gorman calls the bill “a frightening invasion of privacy” because patients and providers have no say over whether the state may have “access to individual information on physical functioning, medical treatment, supposed mental stability, marital problems, family structure, sexual habits, addictions, adherence to government health recommendations, and individual financial arrangements.”

Noting that Colorado state government has a history of losing supposedly secure data, Gorman is also concerned that the database will be funded by “unknown” sources with “unknown” agendas.

Several other troubling developments surround HB 1330.  The first is how government has flipped transparency from taxpayers watching government to government watching taxpayers.  The second is the lack of outrage from civil libertarians. Worst of all, as Coloradans are about to have all their private medical information collected and stored in a centralized government database, Colorado media are silent.