Feb
23
2010
0

Paying for government

Taxpayers may think they are the only ones footing the bill for government spending.  State Representative Amy Stephens discovered that gifts, grants and donations are often used to fund interim committees and pilot programs established in various pieces of legislation. Stephens bill, HB 10 1178

directs any state agency that receives gifts, grants and donations to make an annual report to the General Assembly.  Beginning in 2011, the report will list each gift, grant or donation received; its source and use; and its impact on the sustainability of certain programs. Upon receipt of a gift, grant or donation from a non-governmental entity, a state agency is to request a letter from the donor that specifies the amount, duration, purpose, and bill number if applicable.

Those are important words.  This legislation acknowledges that “non-governmental” entities, such as non-profits, may fund legislation and programs.  Funding from non-profits is a creative way to maintain or develop new programs.  COST doesn’t discourage the practice, but taxpayers have a right to know which organizations are funding programs to expand government.

Oddly, the bill has a fiscal note of just under $1 million.  COST can’t believe that state agencies aren’t doing this already.

Transparency in the Use of Grant Moneys passed out of the House on third reading with a 63-1 vote, despite our Transparency Czarina’s prediction that it would be killed. Sometimes it’s okay to be wrong.

Written by amy in: Uncategorized |
Nov
22
2009
0

Zippity-Doo-Dah!

COST just discovered that Colorado’s Department of Human Services, on behalf of taxpayers, paid Radio Disney $1010 for “other marketing expenses.” COST has no idea what taxpayers received because the Web site provides no explanation.

Oct
09
2009
0

Things that make us go hmmm…

COST has been playing around on the Governor new transparency Web site TOP (Transparency Online Project).  We found a lot of interesting things. Below are just a few.

  • According to our search of expenditures by department for FY 2009, state government departments spent $32,018, 031,398.93.   That’s substantially more than the $18.7 billion that the state claims it spent.  COST found out that the state counts some expenditures more than once. 
  • Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) spent $1983.78 at the Double Eagle Hotel and Casino, $577 at Beaver Run Resort, $968.16 at the Burnsley Hotel, and $748.50 at Wine County Property RLLLP.  Since no context is provided, it is impossible for taxpayers to know what they received for these DOLA “official functions” expenditures, unless they issue DOLA with a CORA request.
  • Department of Higher Education spent $3,673,885.12 for honorariums.
  • Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) paid $64,174.99 to CBS TV Stations for public relations.  This expenditure probably is part of DORA’s PR campaign featuring Governor Ritter that Denver Post columnist Vince Carroll exposed.

COST can’t make judgments as to whether these expenditures are a good use of taxpayers’ dollars because we have no context nor do we have any idea as to the proposed outcome.  By spending this money, what were taxpayers supposed to receive in return?

Stay tuned there is more…much more.

Written by amy in: Uncategorized |
Jul
01
2009
0

Fees: 560 million more reasons for transparency

Technically the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights prevents lawmakers from raising taxes without a vote of the people.  They can raise fees but fees are supposed to cover the cost of services provided only.  And the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny are real.

Natalie Menten and Face the State cooperated to show us just how much the General Assembly raised fees in the last legislative session. 

59 bills were introduced during the 2009 session that established or changed fees. Of the lot, only eight were killed, with the balance signed by the governor for a total of $562,969,430 in revenue for fiscal year 2009-2010.

Pick your favorite fee by checking out the 2009 Fee Increase Spreadsheet.  The new fees provide some 560 million reasons why Coloradans need complete transparency.

Written by amy in: Uncategorized |
Mar
08
2009
0

Office depot + SB 57 = savings for Colorado schools

Maybe.

COST learned that while Independence Institute Investigative Reporter Todd Shepherd was doing some research on school district expenditures he discovered that several districts paid Office Depot more than $250,000 for supplies between July and December 2008

That’s doesn’t necessarily raise any red flags unless you are Todd and know that the giant office supplies retailer “has been or is being investigated by a total of six states for potential ‘bait and switch’ pricing methods to government agencies like school districts, city and county governments, and police departments.” 

Todd’s research does suggest yet another reason to support SB 57 which would provide transparency for public school districts.  More eyes on spending equals more savings for school districts.

Feb
05
2009
0

A big thank you…

At COST we don’t pursue a personal agenda.  We promote financial transparency because we believe taxpayers (that does include us — so maybe it is personal) have a right to know how their money is spent.  We aren’t fishing for praise or accolades.  Our rewards will come when every level of government in Colorado embraces full financial transparency.  That doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate compliments when we get them. 

A big thanks to the Citizens in Charge Foundation and Paul Jacobs for recognizing our work.  Mr. Jacobs says referrring to full transparency in Colorado,  ”COST wants the whole story. And will keep pressing until it gets it.”

“This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.”

Check out the audio and article referring to our work at COST.    Thanks again for recognizing us.

Written by amy in: Uncategorized |
Feb
04
2009
0

Colorado is unique

Why is transparency a partisan issue in Colorado?

We are different from other states. Other states have implemented transparency with bi-partisan support.  Barack Obama is the poster child for transparency in government (at least he says he is), yet in Colorado the left resists transparency.  in 2007, transparency legislation was killed along a party line vote.  It was Democrats in the Senate Education Committee that gutted SB09-57.  Why?

Written by amy in: Uncategorized |
Jan
26
2009
0

Putting the “public” back in public schools

Below is the text of a great op-ed from Independence Institute education policy analyst Ben DeGrow.  Ben makes the case for transparency in Colorado’s school districts.   

Financial Transparency strengthens the “public” in public education
By Ben DeGrow

Colorado has a tremendous opportunity to lead the way in making public education a more truly public enterprise.

School officials should place detailed and useful spending information where citizens can access it freely: the Internet. Such a simple and highly cost-effective approach promotes public accountability and transparency.

Public schools in Colorado are funded through taxpayer dollars and governed by boards accountable to taxpayers and parents. But school boards generally set policies and oversee affairs from a high-perched mountain view.

Bringing more concerned eyes to keep tabs on the taxpayer money flowing in and out of the education bureaucracy can only help. Financial transparency provides incentives to focus spending on classroom activities and other priorities supported by the community. It also promotes better-informed public debate and greater taxpayer confidence in the management of their money.

Currently, a concerned citizen can access extensive amounts of detailed spending information, but almost exclusively through formal requests that tend to be costly, time-intensive, and stressful. The expense and difficulty varies from one school district to another.

Consumers should not have to pay to see grocery store or department store receipts. Likewise, taxpayers should have a free and easy way to view how their school tax funds are being used. Today’s technology makes it rather easy for officials to post detailed financial records online in a usable format.

For less than $10,000, a private group in Wisconsin can take existing government accounting data, quickly convert it into a searchable database, and host it online. Milwaukee Public Schools’ 432,000 invoices made up one of its first projects. As capacity grows, the cost for an agency to follow suit will continue to decline.

The federal government and a handful of state governments have taken advantage of current technology to build these kinds of user-friendly budget databases. One of the innovators is the state of Texas, where the Comptroller’s office accurately boasts their Where the Money Goes Web site allows users to drill their searches for expenditure information “down to the pencil.”

The best news from the transparency efforts in Texas is the nearly $5 million reported in cost savings, including $2.3 million in the site’s first year of operation. The direct public oversight of spending allowed the state to consolidate contracts, to find more affordable services, and to eliminate non-essential purchases.

No one can guarantee that Colorado schools will realize the same amount of savings by forging ahead with online financial transparency. But it remains distinctly possible that the largely nominal cost to post detailed spending on searchable databases could more than pay for itself.

In tight budget times, every little bit of savings can help. While transparency is an intrinsically worthy goal, the practical benefits of greater efficiency only makes the case for posting expenditures online all the more pressing.

Bill 57 before the Colorado legislature proposes to open up the books of every school district, charter school, and local public education agency in the state. With the bill enacted into law, citizens could search online databases to see if their money is being put to good use. School administrators could follow the lead of Illinois and Texas counterparts who have embraced transparency, adopting the policy that “if you can’t defend it, don’t spend it.”

On one hand, where citizens can see their tax dollars are being used frugally but needs not being met, they may be more likely to support requests to increase funding through property taxes or voluntary contributions.

On the other hand, where serious issues are raised, the impetus will be on local officials to implement reasonable public suggestions for cost savings before asking for more funds.

Shining sunlight on the detailed financial picture for all to see would help strengthen the “public” in public education.

Ben DeGrow is education policy analyst for the Independence Institute, a free market think tank based in Golden.

Written by amy in: Uncategorized |
Oct
22
2008
0

Transparency network

Transparency in government is not a partisan issue.  People from all parts of the political spectrum and all walks of life want more transparency in their governments.  We want to highlight a few resources for those who are interested in transparency and transparency in Colorado.

Local:

Citizens’ View of Littleton Colorado

Englewood Citizens for Open Government

Weld County check registry

Colorado:

Denver Post Colorado state employee salary database

Colorado Press Association Open Government 2008

National:

Americans for Tax Reform: Center for Fiscal Accountability  This site also contains information about transparency movements at the local, state and national level.  Plus it provides model legislation and other advocacy tools.

USA Spending

Federal Spending

Sunshine Review

Other states:

Show me the spending

These states provide some degree of online budget and spending disclosure:

Written by amy in: Uncategorized |
Oct
15
2008
0

We want your transparency stories!

Do you have a story about transparency, good or bad?  Is your local government open or cloaked in secrecy? Have you had your CORA request denied?  We want to hear about it.  Email us your story at cost@i2i.org and we may publish it.

Written by amy in: Uncategorized |

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