Fate of state transparency bill in Finance panel’s hands

State Sen. Mike Kopp will shepherd transparency bill through the Senate.

DENVER – The Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act is in the home stretch, but could run up against a couple of hurdles – hearings before the Senate Finance and Appropriations committees.

House Bill 1288, which would put the state government’s checkbook online, goes before the Finance Committee again Thursday after being laid over yesterday.

If it passes, the bill might have a hard time squeezing onto the Senate Appropriations Committee calendar, which was supposed to close on Wednesday.

But Finance Committee chair Sen. Paula Sandoval, D-Dist. 34 said she is certain the bill will be heard in Appropriations.

Finance Committee members Tuesday drilled the bill’s Senate sponsor, Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Dist. 22, pointedly comparing it to a recent executive order issued by Gov. Bill Ritter.

Supporters of Kopp’s bill welcomed Ritter’s order as a move in the right direction.

But some believe the order is too limited, offering only a broad picture of government spending instead of the more detailed requirements in HB 1288.

“It is a welcomed first step,” said Amy Oliver Cooke, spokeswoman for Colorado Spending Transparency. “But it is little more than a first step and a weak one at that.”

Cooke said financial transparency should be established in law by the legislature, not left to the whim of future governors.

Oliver takes exception to a provision in the executive order that says: “where access to each individual transaction is likely to hinder, rather than foster this goal (accountability), the system may provide access to aggregated information.”

“That’s a loophole big enough to hide much of the government spending Coloradans demand to see,” she said Wednesday. “Let taxpayers see how the state spends their money and they can decide if the details help or hinder accountability.”

The bill last week won overwhelming support of the House floor, where it passed 61-4. Reps. Gwyn Green, D-Dist. 23; Joel Judd, D-Dist. 5; Su Ryden, D-Dist. 36; and Sara Gagliardi, D-Dist. 27, cast the four votes against the bill.

Oliver said she remains “cautiously optimistic” about the bill’s chances in the Senate a similar bill that would have required schools’ to post their finances online passed 28-6 earlier this year.

That legislation, the Public Schools Financial Transparency Act, later died in the House Education Committee, where Democrats dumped it by an 8-5 vote.

Rep. B.J. Nikkel, R-Dist. 49, who sponsored HB 1288 in is journey through the House, also is worried about the wording in Ritter’s executive order.

“I 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 shortly after Ritter issued the order. 

Nikkel shares Cooke’s concern that Ritter left open 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 later said he is was not aware there were any differences between his order and Nikkel’s bill.

His 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.

Ritter’s lack of specifics also bothers Kopp.

“Obviously, I’m glad that the state is going to move this direction,” Kopp said. “But my feeling is that we brought this bill (HB1288) forward because we could never get any clear definition as to how meritorious his executive order was going to be.”

HB 1288 is the only survivor among three transparency bills presented in the current session of the legislature.

SB 57, which died in the House Education Committee, 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 exempt.

Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch and Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Dist. 20 sponsored the bill.

Another bill, SB 236, never cleared 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.