Colorado Spending Transparency

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.

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.

Greeley Tribune editor Randy Bangert penned a column about the frustration of getting public information. He highlighted several attempts by his staff to get public information from government entities. In one case the paper requested emails between “specific” employees at the University of Northern Colorado.  UNC responded:

If you want the e-mails as requested, it will involve 408 hours of work at their standard billing rate of $59 an hour, for a total cost of $24,072.

“This fee covers our staffing costs to retrieve electronically the information,” said the university’s response.

The outrageous price caused Bangert to comment, “At $59 an hour, I’m wondering where I can apply for that job.”

Sometimes transparency is priceless.  Independence Institute investigative reporter Todd Shepherd learned that Governor Bill Ritter deactivated his state-issued cell phone in the middle of a 2008 court battle with the Denver Post over cell phone records.   The phone was never reactivated.  Instead Ritter uses a privately provided cell phone so his phone records aren’t subject to the Colorado Open Records Act.  Ritter to watchdogs: LOL!

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.

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.

Governor Bill Ritter spent more than $200,000 on TV, photographs and videos of himself, an Associated Press investigation revealed.   According to AP, “taxpayers paid that amount for photos of the Democratic governor signing bills and attending a lavish production for the state film commission.”

Also revealed in the story, the Bawmann Group, which COST reported on a few months ago, received a federal grant awarded through the state for $669,000 “to promote fatherhood last year.”

If Colorado employed priority-based budgeting, COST wonders where Governor Ritter’s taxpayer-funded photo shoots would fall on the list of priorities.  Before or after all the money he spends on his own lobbyists?

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.

According to Governor Bill Ritter’s own transparency Web site TOP, the state paid $283,129.15 to Beaver Run Resort over the last two fiscal years (FY08-09 and FY09-10).   Several state government departments including Education, Governor’s office, Higher Ed, Human Services, Judicial, Corrections, Public Safety, Health Care Policy and Financing, and Local Affairs, spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for official functions, customer workshops, in-state travel, food, equipment rental and more.

COST reminds its readers that we are not here to judge the expenditures, but we would like to know how Colorado taxpayers benefited.  What was the intended performance outcome of these expenditures?

Some context certainly would be helpful especially considering the Governor’s latest round of “budget cuts” which includes $145 million for Higher Education and more furlough days for state employees.

Transparency Czarina Amy Oliver Cooke showed COST, not one but two, very pretty, 4-color glossy brochures from the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF).  Ms. Cooke received them when HCPF Director Joan Henneberry presented her “if money weren’t an object what would your department want” list to the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission of which our Czarina is a member.

Of course we wanted to know how much those pretty brochures, complete with messages and photos from both Henneberry and Governor Bill Ritter, cost Colorado taxpayers.  So we went to Governor Ritter’s transparency site TOP for more information. 

COST found that HCPF spent $74, 935.91 on “printing/reproduction services.” But we have no idea what Coloradans received for their nearly $75,000.  Inherent in true transparency is an explanation so taxpayers know how they benefited from government expenditures.  That is one of the many problems with TOP.

We stumbled on to something else. Under advertising, we found an $8750.00 payment to the Bawmann Group Inc that specializes in crisis communication management.  The company Web site boasts “60 minutes, Larry King, we’re ready!”

If you’ve ever been the subject of intense media exposure — for all the wrong reasons — then you know there are worse things in life: like being run over by a train. Helping you get off the tracks and put the pieces back together is what we do best.

Some of our recent crisis communications clients include the University of Colorado and President Elizabeth Hoffman who faced a national media frenzy over allegations against the football team for sexual misconduct; a home health agency under threat of lawsuit for an alleged wrongful death; and a CEO of a major nonprofit institution who was ambush interviewed about his salary.

 
Crisis communications is at the core of what we do at The Bawmann Group. It is our experience that during times of major transition, organizations are most vulnerable to situations were negative press occurs. Being vigilantly prepared and response-ready can help mitigate major damage.

Why would HCPF need to use taxpayer dollars for “crisis communications?” That’s when COST remembered Director Henneberry’s response to HCPF employee AnnMarie Maynard turned whistleblower.  Through secret tapings, Maynard exposed HCPF’s attempt to hide the misuse of $8 million in taxpayer funds. Instead of being rewarded for exposing wrongdoing, Maynard was fired, and Henneberry went on to contradict state law by forbidding the secret taping in the future.

Governor Ritter supported Henneberry’s decision, but the State Personnel Board did not.  In fact the personnel board suggested that Ritter discipline Henneberry. Instead using taxpayer money, he appealed the decision.  As COST related back in January:

A Denver Post editorial articulated the arrogance of spending someone else’s money, “HCPF presented its case in two sets of legal hearings and failed to persuade. Its new policy exhibits a fear of transparency rather than a concern about wrongly collecting taxpayer money.”

Now the $8750 payment to the BawmannGroup just might make sense. To be fair, Bawmann does other types of marketing campaigns — not just crisis communication management. But it does make COST wonder if HCPF used taxpayer money to hire the PR firm to handle bad publicity from HCPF’s misuse of taxpayer funds.  COST can call to find out, but if Governor Ritter gave more than lip service to transparency, taxpayers and COST would know.

And when we call, we’ll ask why the Department of Human Services under the leadership of Karen Beye paid $793,068.24 to Bawmann.

“Why does Governor Ritter have to be dragged kicking and screaming into transparency?” asked our big boss Jon Caldara.

Investigative reporter Todd Shepherd exposed Ritter’s latest battle against transparency.  Shepherd discovered that Ritter and his administration have virtually ignored a Governor Bill Owens executive order requiring that “all cabinet members as well as senior staff members submit a conflicts of interest report before the end of January every year.”

According to Shepherd’s report, his CORA request netted only three pages of responsive reports all from Agriculture Secretary John Stulp.  In other words, the rest of the Governor’s cabinet and senior staff members ignored a standing executive order to disclose annually any and all conflicts of interest.

Evan Dreyer, the Governor’s spokesman, blamed taxpayers.  The Denver Post paraphrased Dreyer, “Ritter came into office as the voter-approved gift ban known as Amendment 41 took effect, and the additional ethics rules caused confusion in the new administration.”

This is more than just “confusion.” These disclosures are about good governance and transparency.  The state’s chief executive officer must air on the side of transparency, but as COST has documented the Governor is no friend to transparency. 

Ritter actively tried to kill State Rep BJ Nikkel’s Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act, which sought to provide detailed expenditure and revenue information online in a searchable format.  When that failed, Ritter issued an incredibly “weak”  and “pointless” executive order to provide aggregated financial information.

A watered down version of Rep Nikkel’s bill did pass, but left the details up to the Governor and State Controller David McDermott.  Unfortunately for taxpayers, the state’s new transparency Web site TOP certainly violates the spirit of detailed financial transparency that so many Coloradans wanted. 

Even though Ritter is no fan of transparency, he must abide by an executive order because it has the force of law behind it. For the last three years, Ritter and his administration have been in violation of the law.  

How did Ritter respond to this ethical laspe?  First, he thanked Jon Caldara and the Independence Institute on the Mike Rosen Show; Then, as the Denver Post reported, Ritter rescinded the previous executive order and issued a new one — making it all better.

COST has another suggestion.  Ritter might want to have a sit down with his spokesman Evan Dryer.  The Westword was right.  Caldara and good governance do not like to be ignored.  Maybe then Ritter wouldn’t have be dragged kicking and screaming into transparency.