Governor orders measure of online access to state’s spending, income
Gov. Bill Ritter announces his executive order that will put some state financial records online.
DENVER – Gov. Bill Ritter Thursday issued an executive order requiring the state’s checkbook to be posted online, but transparency advocates plan to push ahead a bill that would require transparency by law.
“This executive order expands our strong commitment to a transparent, accountable and open government for Colorado’s citizens,’ Ritter said. “The TOP system ensures that citizens can get timely, free, accessible and meaningful access to the state’s financial information.”
Ritter’s order establishes the Transparency Options Project (TOP) to implement online access to state government’s spending and revenue records. It will be compiled through the Office of Information and Technology and the Office of the State Comptroller.
“Transparency is more than a good idea – it’s good government,” said Attorney General John Suthers. “Public scrutiny is the best check on government.”
Supporters of a bill that would require the state’s records be posted by law, rather than by executive order, fear the governor’s plan won’t go far enough. They say Ritter’s decision to sign the order Thursday was a ploy to derail the Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act.
That legislation, House Bill 1288, was scheduled to go before the House Appropriations Committee Friday, but its sponsor, Rep. B.J. Nikkel, R-Dist. 49, asked for that hearing to be postponed.
“I do think it is an end-run around my transparency bill, which is about true transparency vs. his executive order, which is about token transparency” Nikkel said.
The Appropriations Committee hearing has not been rescheduled.
Ritter’s order requires a “free, searchable web-based system providing access to descriptions of the state’s revenues and expenditures” but doesn’t specify how detailed those descriptions would be. It also says “where access to each individual transaction is likely to hinder, rather than foster this goal, the system may provide access to aggregated information.”
Nikkel is concerned that wording provides a loophole that would allow entire departments to lump spending under a single figure, providing far less information than what is currently required under the Colorado Open Records Act.
Ritter’s lack of specifics also bothers Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Jefferson County.
“Obviously, I’m glad that the state is going to move this direction,” Kopp said. “But my feeling is that we brought this bill forward because we could never get any clear definition as to how meritorious his executive order was going to be.”
Nikkel’s bill would require all information required by CORA to be provided on a line-item basis in a searchable database with regular updates.
The bill cleared the House Finance Committee March 4 with unanimous support. During the Finance Committee’s hearing, members questioned whether an executive order – then only a possibility – would serve the same purpose.
A number of witnesses expressed concern that an executive order could be undone with little or no public process. Instead, the supporters said, transparency should carry the weight of law and stand until the legislature decides otherwise.
“An executive order can be rescinded at any time, any place by any governor. The taxpayers deserve to have this made permanent in statute,” Nikkel said.
HB 1288 is the only survivor among three transparency bills presented in the current session of the legislature.
Senate Bill 57, the Public Schools Financial Transparency Act, sailed through the Senate 28-6, but was broadsided by the House Education Committee, which voted 8-5 along party lines to kill it.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch and Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Dist. 20, would have required school districts to compile their spending and revenue in an online searchable database. Districts and charter schools with no web access would have been expempt.
Another bill, SB 236, died in committee. It would have required school districts to conduct at least one public hearing before building a school, providing neighbors of the school site a chance to comment.
Related:
