House panel kills bill to post tax-money trail on Web

By Charley Able

Lakewood Edge

DENVER – The House Education Committee Thursday rejected a bill that would shine more light on Public Schools’ use of taxpayer money.

Senate Bill 57 , the Public Schools Financial Transparency Act, fell to a 8-5 partisan vote after a strong lobbying effort by teacher and school administrator groups.

The bill was one of three transparency bills state legislators offered this session. Two of the measures, SB57 and House Bill 1288 would require on-line disclosure of how tax money is spent, including a bill to put the state government’s finances on-line.

HB 1288, The Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act, cleared the House Finance Committee March 4 by a unanimous vote. It moves next to the House Appropriations Committee.

But The Public Schools Financial Transparency Act, fell in its first test in the House exactly a month to the day after it gained final state Senate approval.

The House Education Committee vote postponed consideration of the bill indefinitely.

All eight who opposed the bill had the same comment: “I’m for transparency but…” before voting to place the bill in permanent exile. Then cited such things as the cost to schools and that the decision to provide on-line access should be left to local school boards.

And, despite the testimony of 40 citizens who waited more than seven hours to testify in favor of the bill, one legislator even suggested the committee needs more input from the public.

But Rep. Amy Stevens, who carried the bill in the House, said the eight Democrats who voted against the wider access on-line posting would provide did so because they don’t want transparency.

“I’m not surprised by the vote, I’m not surprised by the questions,” Stevens said after the

committee vote. “We knew it going in.”

The Democrats thinking was: “We want transparency to go away and, not only do we want it to go away, we’re killing this baby,” Stevens said.

Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, pushed the bill through the Senate, where it gained dramatic, bipartisan support.

It would have required all but a handful of school districts to post their checkbooks and expense accounts on-line by 2011. Six districts and a few charter schools with no web-page capability were exempted.

Senate opposition to Harvey’s school transparency bill was orchestrated by Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, and Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, who claimed the measure would cost the bulk of the state’s 178 school districts a collective total of more than $3 million dollars.

Hudak and Bacon were supported by Sen. Moe Keller, D-Lakewood; Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood; Brandon Shaffer, D-D-Lafayette; and Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, who voted against the bill.

Jefferson County schools already are moving toward on-line disclosure. District officials estimate the initial cost at about $10,000 or less and peg the ongoing expense of monthly update at about $5,000 a year.

Harvey and a number of other senators, including Chris Romer, D-Denver, said the costs would be negligible.

Gov. Bill Ritter recently estimated it would cost only about $14,000 to put the entire state government’s checkbook and expense accounts on-line, a much more massive task than would be required of school districts if the measure clears the House.

Harvey’s bill attracted the attention of both the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. In editorials published the day the bill was approved, both newspapers scoffed at the claims of huge costs by Hudak and Bacon.

Harvey said the enactment of the bill would, in reality, save money by opening the school’s books to inspection by vendors competing for contracts as well as citizens who find and point out fiscal abuse.

Harvey said a website put together by Lakewood resident Natalie Menten, provides a searchable database of Jeffco School District finances expense account purchases for only $5 a month. The software that performs searches and compiles data on Menten’s site is simple and uses free shareware.

“But beyond the cost savings is the ability of the taxpayers to understand where the government spends their tax dollars. If you can’t defend it, don’t spend it,” Harvey said, quoting a citizen who testified for the bill.

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Fort Lupton, said he is disappointed that opponents of the measure were clouding the issue with inflated cost estimates.

“It pains me to see the fog that can be generated to shelter our schools from accountability,” Mitchell said.

HB 1288, the only remaining financial transparency bill still standing this session, would require the state to create a searchable database website so citizens can access the income and spending information on-line. The bill, sponsored by Rep. B.J. Nikkel, R-Estes Park, also would require every state agency to post a link to the database on their websites. Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Pine, is carrying the bill in the Senate.

A third transparency bill, SB 236, died in the Senate education Committee Feb. 24.

That bill sought at least one public hearing before school districts build new schools, providing neighbors and other citizens a chance to comment. It mustered only a single “yes” vote.

The Public School Construction Transparency bill, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Loveland, arose in part from a dispute over the Jeffco’s schools’ plan to move Johnson School from its location in Golden to the slopes of Green Mountain.

The plan surprised immediate neighbors of the site, who learned of the proposed new school only a week before construction was to begin.

After a neighborhood outcry, the district canceled plans for the site.

But the Senate Education Committee would have no part of the bill. It mustered only a single vote in its favor.

“It went down in flames,” said Jeff Sacco, who lives near the site and who spent weeks lobbying to get the bill introduced, only to see it die in committee.

“It was devastating,” said Linda Sasenick, Sacco’s cohort in the group Transparency in Education. “I think that we did not understand the depth of the opposition to what would have been only a small change in the way school district operate.

Both hope the public hearing requirement will surface again next year as part of a more comprehensive bill with a much wider scope.