Good Jobs First has released state stimulus website rankings for all states. Unlike other state rankings, Pennsylvania does well, relative to its peers. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania gets 50 out of 100 possible points for the level of informational available on its stimulus site.
The Maryland site gets the top overall grade, and while I haven't perused it enough to see how much detail I can get on their stimulus spending, it sure does look pretty.
A reader sent us this, which is an excellent question about how many state worker will really have to be laid off:
I have heard a lot of speculation about what the dramatic impact of the spending cuts would be (according to Rendellian budget analysis). One of the items cited is a huge loss of State jobs. I think they cited something like 800 jobs. I would like to understand if anybody has gotten a hard analysis of those jobs that would be lost from the Governor? How many are current active employees? How many are openings that won't be filled? How many are rank and file vs managerial? How many will be lost to attrition in the next fiscal year?While one might think this information is readily available, it is not. I have not seem any supporting evidence for the “800 jobs” (sometimes "2,000") figure, and certainly not how those positions break out. House and Senate Republicans argue that many of those “jobs” are currently vacant positions which still get funding in the state budget, but there is no way to verify.
Additionally, I would love to know how many consulting firms are engaged, how many consultants for each firm, expenditures to consultants, what role are these consultants playing, is it mission critical?
This is all routine stuff we look at in the private sector so I figure the information must be available..I just can't seem to find it. THANKS!
The Mercatus Center has a new podcast on state online spending transparency. Jerry Brito, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, discusses the need for spending transparency in states through online databases and searchable open books. He says that criticism (coming mostly from legislators)is unfounded - these websites are inexpensive and that states that have built these websites have spent an average of $140,000.
The Commonwealth Foundation has advocated the need for spending transparency in Harrisburg on a consistent basis, such as HB 1460 or SB 105. Many states have already seen the need for some sort of an "open book" on government spending.
Kansas is one of the first states to pass substantive transparency legislation and boasts one of the most comprehensive online databases for government expenditures. Other outstanding examples include Oklahoma’s OpenBooks website and Missouri’s Accountability Portal, which also provides the salaries of government employees.
The Rendell administration has released a new version of his Pennsylvania state budget proposal, unfortunately this is only available in a PDF document, and does not include the allocation of ARRA (federal stimulus funds), which makes it difficult to compare with the Senate version, SB 850 (also only available in PDF).
But thanks to the hard work of staff and summer interns, the Commonwealth Foundation has put an Excel version of the Pennsylvania budget online - which includes Rendell's original proposal, the version passed by the Senate, and Rendell's latest iteration. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only place to get a spreadsheet of the proposed budgets - neither the administration nor the legislative caucuses have provided the info this way - and the only source for Rendell's total spending proposal.
We had to estimate the ARRA appropriations in the Governor's revised budget (the budget office promises to get the actual allocations to us, but not for another week). Users can download to see where the money is going - the file allows for collapsing line items by department and has hidden columns that break down ARRA vs. state sources of funds, but users can play around to check all of these.
More resources on the Pennsylvania state budget is available from Sunshine Review.
With all the debate surrounding the Budget this summer, a concerned taxpayer has the right to see exactly what his representatives and legislature are doing on the people’s time, or does he? According to the state Sunshine legislation, all official “agency” business, including that of the General Assembly, Governor’s cabinet, or any board, council, authority, or commission of the state must be open to the public. That is, state university boards, school boards, and county commissioners have to make their budget deliberations open to the public.
However, the Rendell administration continues to bypass the Sunshine Act and remain virtually unchecked by not allowing certain people, such as myself, into “open” meetings. Instead of debating the state budget on the House floor or in Committee, they continue to hold closed-door meetings in the Governor’s mansion with only a few legislative leaders.
Why aren’t these meetings public? Well perhaps, what is discussed would embarrass many lawmakers. For instance, one aspect of debate is reportedly whether to cut funding for 20 open positions. “Not cutting” open positions is code for hiring more government employees, which perhaps should be reconsidered given a $3.2 billion deficit.
And given the recent experience with budget negotiators like Vince Fumo and Mike Veon, who were convicted and indicted for using taxpayer dollars for their own gain, respectively, wouldn’t now be a good time for transparency, just to convince voters that not every lawmaker is a crook?
Mark Levy of the AP has a hard hitting story of Pennsylvania lawmakers use of WAMs - i.e. "Walking Around Money" made available to us at the discretion of legislative leaders. Levy finds, not suprisingly, that $110 million in WAMs were doled out in such a way as to benefit the districts of legislative leaders.
But the AP analysis found that tiny Greene County, 56th out of 67 Pennsylvania counties in population and home of last year's House Democratic leader, Bill DeWeese, was slated to receive more than $3 million, or about $82 per person. That made Greene County No. 1 in grant dollars per person and No. 6 in total dollars.For those unfamiliar with WAMs and the WAM process, Levy provides an excellent summary, for those who can stomach learning how sausage is made:
No. 2 in dollars per person was Carbon County - home of House Speaker Keith McCall, who was the Democratic whip last year - with an average of $50 per person in requests. Carbon County, 40th in population, also was expected to receive about $3 million - making it No. 7 in overall dollars.
On the Republican side, House GOP grant requests helped put Jefferson and Delaware counties - respectively the homes of Minority Leader Sam Smith and Mario Civera, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee - in line for more money than most counties with similar populations.
In the Senate, Democrats requested outsized portions for the home counties of last year's ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, Gerald LaValle of Beaver County, and his successor, Jay Costa of Allegheny County. Similar patterns were not as evident in the grants requested by the Senate GOP.
Pennsylvania's budget does not specify the money that is set aside for legislators' special projects. It also does not link grants to individual legislators, or groups of legislators, who sought the money.It is for these reasons - corruption, the process by which WAMs are doled out, and the waste of taxpayer funding, that we believe WAMs should be eliminated from the state budget. We have attempted to identify line items within the state budget that could be classified as WAMs.
Pennsylvania's legislative grants - known colloquially as "WAMs," for walking-around money - have existed in one form or another for a couple of decades, built around the concept of providing the Legislature with a pot of money to spend as it sees fit.
Once the total amount available for the grants in the budget is hammered out behind closed doors, legislative leaders sift through requests from their caucus members and submit selected ones, along with their own, to the governor's office. Executive branch agencies match the requests to applications filed by the intended recipients for more than a dozen programs that are flush with money for the grants. ...
Former Sen. Vincent Fumo of Philadelphia is awaiting sentencing for his February conviction on 137 corruption counts, including the misuse of money from a nonprofit that he founded and partially financed with the grants. Former Rep. Michael Veon of Beaver County has been charged with committing similar crimes.
FYI by PLS has a brief summary of a hearing yesterday on proposals to create a state spending transparency for Pennsylvania, with particular attention paid to HB 1460 sponsored by Rep. Jim Christiana (similar legislation passed the Pennsylvania Senate last month). PLS subscribers can view the full summary. Rep. Christiana also has a summary of the hearing:
For everyone else, here is what you missed:
Sandra Fabry of the Center for Fiscal Accountability led things off (her testimony is here), testifying that 25 states have already enacted such legislation, typically for very little costs, and often resulting in dramatic savings. She dismissed claims that such a website would cost several million dollars.
Ed Martin, former chief of staff to Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt testified that they created the Missouri Accountability Portal without additional funding, with current staff preparing the system. He said their site has had 20 million hits, and constituents have found several examples of wasteful spending that resulted in changes in policy. He also commented that they report every dollar spent (vs. a $5,000 threshold in the proposed Pennsylvania legislation). The Missouri site has expanded to now include state employee salaries and tax credit programs, and they are working to help local governments develop similar sites.
Rep. Kasha Kelly from Kansas testified about the creation of KanView, noting as others had that the site was created for far less cost than projected, and has resulted in savings and cuts of some wasteful spending. She added that they also have no threshold for reporting of grants or expenditures, and that is easier to do than setting a minimum. She also noted that while some "big spenders" may have opposed the legislation, when it came to a vote, there was little opposition.
The Commonwealth Foundation spoke to the need to have greater transparency, using the current budget debate as a case in point, as well as refuting argument that this information was already available online. Rep. Kathy Rapp seconded that notion, noting that it was difficult even for lawmakers to get information about what specific line items actually fund. Elizabeth Bryan's testimony is here.
Finally, Terry Mutchler, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records testified in support of the legislation. She commented that not only was transparency a good move for government, but an online website would dramatically reduce the number of Open Records requests state departments would receive - perhaps by 30% - saving staff time and resources. She suggested that the proposed time frame in the legislation be amended, as it was important to do transparency right, not just soon (Rep. Christiana concurred, noting the timeline would be amended based on how quickly the legislation moves through the process).
Today, Governor Rendell announced an "emergency cabinet meeting" to discuss the state budget, and state the meeting will be closed to the public.
But wouldn't such a closed-door meeting violate the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act? By my lay reading of the law, it would:
65 Pa.C.S.A. § 702. Legislative findings and declarationThere are some exemptions, but the one most likely to apply is "executive session" if the cabinet is meeting to discuss employment or ... wait for it ... to renegotiate labor contracts. Hmmm...
The General Assembly finds that the right of the public to be present at all meetings of agencies and to witness the deliberation, policy formulation and decisionmaking of agencies is vital to the enhancement and proper functioning of the democratic process and that secrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and the public's effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic society. ...
65 Pa.C.S.A. § 703. Definitions
"Agency." The body, and all committees thereof authorized by the body to take official action or render advice on matters of agency business, of all the following: the General Assembly, the executive branch of the government of this Commonwealth, including the Governor's Cabinet when meeting on official policymaking business ...
Stop Teacher Strikes has posted the 2007-08 salary information (collected by Asbury Park Press) for 195,000 Pennsylvania teachers and school employees, searchable by name, district, or position
Click here for the data.
Good read on transparency effort in state government by Larry Reed in the latest issue of the Freeman.
Legislation which we have discussed many times on this blog (see previous posts here and here, and Elizabeth Bryan's commentary here) to create an online database of state spending passed the Pennsylvania Senate yesterday.
It passed largely along party lines, with Larry Farnese being the only Democrat to cross over and support it, which astounds me, especially given that four members who voted against it were co-sponsors. I can't imagine a good reason to oppose letting taxpayers see how their money is spent (unless they are looking to see the threshold above which grants must be made public lowered from $25,000). The legislation which is similar to what has been passed in 14 other states, and at the federal level - the latter being the key legislative achivement of President Obama in the US Senate.
ABC 27 has a news story and video on proposed legislation that would create an online portal and database of state spending in Pennsylvania.
What is most disappointing are comments by Chuck Ardo, Gov. Rendell's spokesman. Earlier this month, Ardo stated with regard to this legislation, "It sounds like the right thing to do." What happened? Yesterday, here is Ardo's response:
The Governor's Office said that's nothing new. "Most of what that bill calls for is already available on the Internet," said Governor's Office spokesperson Chuck Ardo. "All government contracts are listed on the Treasurer's website."Really? If a legislator, reporter, or taxpayer wanted to weigh in on the current budget debate, and wanted to find out what a specific line item was funding, could they do so? I challenge Ardo to try it sometime.
Kevin Ferris has a good piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer on proposals to create online databases of state spending in Pennsylvania, as well as the success of other states in creating spending transparency. Specifically referenced are legislation introduced in the Senate by Pat Browne and legislation proposed by Rep. Jim Christiana with bi-partisan support.
Even Gov. Rendell's spokesman, Chuck Ardo, is on board, saying "It sounds like the right thing to do." We agree:
Dan Mitchell from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity links the connection between government growth and corruption in this clip. He notes that rather than promoting honest dealings, government intervention and regulation actually encourage corrupt behavior.
Auditor General Jack Wagner believes Pennsylvania is ill-suited to provide transparency and oversight on the stimulus money coming to the state in a letter he sent to the federal Government Accountability Office. See stories in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the Patriot News.
Governor Rendell's spokesman expressed outrage as such accusations, touting the state recovery website - which I have to say I'm not impressed with - and the stimulus oversight commission. Curiously, the Auditor General is not on the stimulus oversight commission, which may be a sore spot, but it is also pretty much his job description to evaluate how taxpayer money is being spent., whereas the people on the oversight commission are largely the spenders, or the recipients, of the money.
On the bright side, the private sector has developed a user-friendly website, which allows users to search for project by state, county, and city at Recovery.org.
The Mercatus Center has a new analysis on the cost of state spending databases showing that it typically costs far less to produce online websites tracking government spending than estimates indicate.
As we have pointed out, spending transparency is key to reducing wasteful spending, achieving greater competition and lower costs for government contracts, and achieving greater accountability.
There are proposals to create a database of state spending both in the Pennsylvania House and in the PA Senate.
Pennsylvania House Republican leader Sam Smith unveiled a 12-point government reform plan which he calls Pennsylvania’s Agenda for Trust in Harrisburg (PATH).
The proposals are:
- No staff allowed to campaign during office hours.
- Public officials cannot start nonprofit organizations while in office.
- Dollar one reporting of campaign contributions, lobby disclosure and ethics statements.
- State grant accountability.
- Searchable database for all state spending.
- General Assembly audits by independent auditors.
- Strengthening whistleblower protections.
- End Pay-to-Play mentality in Pennsylvania by enacting state contracting reform:
- Banning public official from simultaneously working for a lobbyist firm.
- Create an Ethical Code of Conduct for executive branch.
- Strengthen the state Sunshine Law.
- Limits on state contractors ability to use non-public information for their own gain.
John Micek has the list of appointees (sans the GOP caucus appointments) to Gov. Rendell's Stimulus Oversight Commission. Unfortunately, the panel includes no representation by taxpayers, with the exception of Gene Barr of the PA Chamber representing the business community - which often undermines its low tax message with a demand for corporate welfare. Everyone on the commission represents the appropriators, or the recipients, of taxpayer funding. Basically, people who spend other peoples money are being asked to oversee how they spend other peoples money.
I have previously noted I have little confidence in the oversight that would be provided by this commission - I would prefer complete public transparency in how every dollar is spend, i.e. a checkbook registers.
Governor Rendell announced his ideas for "oversight" of the funding Pennsylvania will receive from the federal stimulus (related story here), and unveiled a new website - recovery.pa.gov - to promote transparency in the simulus spending.
While the website does breakdown how much stimulus money PA will get by category, and profiles some of the tax provisions for citizens - indicating someone read the bill - I'm not overly impressed with the promised level of transparency.
For example:
A key provision of the federal recovery is regular public reporting of project status, spending, and job creation and retention. These quarterly reports will be made available on this websiteAs I suggested before, a continually updated checkbook register would offer far better transparency and accountability.
Pennsylvania’s young people will benefit from more than $2.5 billion for tuition assistance and improved public education. ...That's not transparency, it's marketing slogans. They might was well write, "We'll spend lots of money, and it will be awesome."
The economic recovery plan provides an estimated $4 billion to increase access to quality health care for elderly, disabled and low-income Pennsylvanians, as well as other assistance programs.
State Senator Mike Brubaker has a proposal to create greater oversight over how Pennsylvania spends its transparency money (HT: John Micek at Capitol Ideas). The proposal has two components - an oversight commission consisting of four cabinet members, four legislative appointees, and citizen; and a website for information on how the stimulus money is being spent. Congressman (and possible gubernatorial candidate) Jim Gerlach made similar recommendations last week, though the oversight board would be more citizen driven.
Personally, I put little faith in any oversight of spending by the people doing the spending - or even consisting of folks appointed by those doing the spending. Pennsylvania's history with commissions - e.g. the Turnpike Commission, the Gaming Control Board, the Philadelphia Parking Authority, the Commonwealth Financing Authority, and all the local government authorities running hotels, airports, and golf courses - isn't very inspiring.
However, giving the public oversight by putting all the stimulus spending online is critical. A "neutral, fact-based web site" with "at least basic information about the federal stimulus" is not sufficient. The website needs to be comprehensive, and should track every dollar spent - basically putting the checkbook register online.
While Micek makes a crack about this website appealing to "people with entirely too much time" on their hand, we only need a few watchdogs. With full transparency, citizen activists, bloggers, and even people who get paid for this type of thing - including Micek and myself - will do more to ensure accountability in government spending than any oversight commission.
