I heard an interesting story on the radio - NPR - on the way to work this morning. There are ten states that each provide a searchable database of expenditures. Anyone interested in listening to it, it's a one-minute audio cast, located here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18764744&ft=1&f=1014


The story highlighted the Alaska version of an expenditures database, which evidently is brand new:

http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/checkbook_online/index.jsp


So I went searching around. Some interesting background info on government accountability from the state of Washington:

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/GovtRegulations/PNBudgetTransparency.html


According to the NPR story, Missouri gets the 'prize' (from the National Taxpayers Union: http://www.ntu.org/main/) for the most user-friendly such portal. Here is Missouri's searchable portal:

http://mapyourtaxes.mo.gov/MAP/Portal/Default.aspx



This got me to thinking. Why not local government? Why cannot local government provide just the same amount of access?



To get a feel for how one of these works, please try this:

Go to the Missouri Accountability Portal at http://mapyourtaxes.mo.gov/MAP/Portal/Default.aspx, provided for MO citizens as 'a single point of reference to review how their money is being spent'.

On the orange navigation bar across the screen, located just under the (rather large) screen title area, click on the Expenditures 'button' (or 'tab' or 'link', whatever you prefer to call it).

Choose the 'Search by Agency' option, the round, green button on bottom left of the display.


Under the 'Agency Name' column (second from left), notice around five rows down, the link for 'ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION'. Follow that link.

Play around. View expenditures as low as $50 in there.


Start over. On the orange navigation bar across the screen, located just under the (rather large) screen title area, click on the Employees 'button' (or 'tab' or 'link', whatever you prefer to call it).



I'm not really advocating anything specific here. I do think that providing access to expenditures at a detailed level like Missouri does is not only possible, but may not be prohibitively expensive, either.


Food for thought. I might go as far as to suggest that one or some of us who (like me) work in the IT industry might regard this possibility: that we be able to donate some time to providing an initial analysis/feasibility study/high-level design of such a portal, say for d41, if such an idea were acceptable to the community of interests here in GE? But that's not my main issue with this post. I just wanted to expose the possibilities...

I don't listen to NPR too often but today was one of those days. I heard the exact same story and thought the exact same thing.

My question to you all is: would this improve your level of trust in the District/Board on financial matters?

I would have to know more about the parameters of what would be disseminated through this vehicle. It would certainly be interesting. $1,000 minimum might be too high. I would also like to know, if the states using this have seen an improvement in financial stewardship of the tax dollar. It would seem that accountability to the public in terms of them actually seeing dollars spent would be a good thing. If this adds another layer of bureaucracy, then it would have to be really worth it. Would it be cheaper to have an independent forensic audit?

Would all expenses listed be easily identified as to the nature of the expense? Case in point, would be the gradual use of the summer capital projects to air condition virtually every space in D41. I am not advocating against air conditioning schools, but I am saying that a big expenditure like that needs voter approval. Today in the mail I received the winter edition of the "Inside 41." I was relieved to see that the tabloid-type doom and gloom of the "we're out of room" was not present in this edition. However, I was dismayed somewhat to read that "the district will begin spending cash reserves in 2009. A long-range financial plan to help the district contain costs while meeting student needs is under development." While I am all for long range plans, especially for meeting student needs, where was this "fiscal philosophy" when the district was spending our money like drunken sailors while "maximizing the levy"? So, maybe I do want to see the minutiae. Afterall, the expenses of hosting meetings at country clubs, executive sessions of board meetinngs at fine dining establishments, keeping bottled water on hand for staff meetings, etc. may seem to be nickel and diming, but these are the exact type of "extras" most households cut out when they are truly interested in "cost cutting."

As far as would it improve my own level of trust I have in the district? I would have to say only a house cleaning of administration hired by the previous two superintendents and turn over of the board members voted in during those previous administrations (read that as all seats up for election in 2009) would be a start for me.

It certainly seems worth looking in to. I would think that as long as the information is very user-friendly, it would help in building trust.

I do agree with Ohma's points and I think that at least one or two board members would need to go plus perhaps a couple of "hired" people before I'll be really trusting. I want to make it clear (since I'm not so anonymous on this board) that I actually like our superintendent and very much want to trust her. I am still open and feeling as though I can trust her so I hope it stays that way.

In my earlier post I said I was not advocating - but here, I kind-of am. Just a couple seconds of devil's-advocating, I guess:

I think the increased transparency is a benefit no matter who is on the school board, and no matter who is the superintendant. I also think that the openness this represents will encourage trust from more people - even from people who have not moved into the district yet. Even if such openness is not sufficient to earn everyone's trust today, I see it as possibly a necessary building block for earning trust in the future. I say this given the district's 'unique' circumstance, being where it is (figuratively) after the events of the last few years; whether the district was right or wrong to do whatever it did, it needs to do something extra to recover its reputation with many of us.

I would like see such a searchable database of financial information. I would like to be able to see the data at the line item level. I can imagine that as soon as any check is cut, it would only be a matter of time (e.g., 3 days in Missouri's case) before the data find its way onto the public system. No matter how small the amount. I saw line items in the Missouri database of less than $100.

I would also like to see the line items categorized in meaningful ways to support rollups of revenues and/or expenditures along multiple dimensions.

If it were up to me, I would like to see the end product include a translation of accountant-speak into plain English, so that line item titles and descriptions, and summary category titles and descriptions, actually make sense to normal people. Public accounting should not be some kind of occult endeavor where only initiates can understand the lingo. This will make the information even more useful to any citizen of the district.

I agree this would all have to be done right - but I don't see this as being prohibitively hard to do. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, just that it's not wrong to consider.

Well, this was kind of long-winded. Thanks for your patience.

John, Bob,

I definitely see the advantages of a database that easily allows tracking of funds. The truer question for me resides in accountability. I realize the current board is looking at ways to regain the public trust, and the ability to pinpoint items of interest is intriguing. Yet, I look back at the accountability record and how certain residents were treated when the issues of expenditures were brought to light.

A nice gentleman was threatened and cajoled out of town for his forsight into spending practices and referendum hijinks. Others, who made constructive, alternative ideas were ignored or publicly reprimanded. The entire Anti-Referendum 2007 Team was resoundingly ridiculed by establishment and staff for not towing the line.

Knowing there is a spending issue worth public discussion and the ability to have that constructive discussion are two different things. Where would accountability come in?

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Solak:
I don't listen to NPR too often but today was one of those days. I heard the exact same story and thought the exact same thing.

My question to you all is: would this improve your level of trust in the District/Board on financial matters?

It would be a start
Accountability = Trust
Every account would have to be tracked though, even those not subject to audit.

John,

Thanks for starting this post and bringing to the BB's attention.

My first thought is the State of Illinois needs this as much as any of our 50. Probably wouldn't be bad for the City of Chicago either. I think this would be a great way to bring accountability, and trust back to the local school systems.

Folks like bitterboy and taxpayer would have a field day with this.

I vote an emphatic yes for bringing this on board.