SC Bill on Local Government Budget Transparency

When I started getting involved with my town's government several years ago, I quickly found that limited access to budget and other financial information was a serious problem. The town government would not even put the annual budget online, despite the fact that my town has town meetings to discuss the budget and a budget referendum thereafter. It was clear that the board of selectmen and the department heads did not want the public to be able to prepare for these meetings and ask difficult questions.

It took a scandal, a daily newspaper calling the budget a lie, and my putting budget info on an alternative town government website to get the budget officially put online. But still, to get access to monthly financial data and other supporting information individuals were required to go to town hall during the work day and know exactly what to ask for. So I continued to put as much budget info online myself as I could find.

When access to budget data in a town meeting town requires the building of an alternative town government website, it becomes clear that hiding budget information is in the personal interest of those who run the town. In other words, it is a serious government ethics problem.

What are local governments doing to solve this problem? For the most part, nothing or just a little.

What about states? For the most part, nothing. (See a state-by state analysis of budget transparency laws from an anti-tax organization Tertium Quids)

Which is why a bill struggling through the South Carolina legislature is so exciting. Unlike the other state budget transparency laws, it applies to local governments, as well.

According to an Opinion Blog post Sunday at the Sun News website, a few local governments in South Carolina are jumping the gun by putting budget information on their websites before it's required. The focus of the local information is check registers (see Myrtle Beach's). But, at least in Myrtle Beach, the budget information is limited; the only backup documents are from two years ago.

The South Carolina bill covers a lot more than check registers. With respect to check registers, however, the bill requires that the info is "prominently posted on the Internet website maintained by the entity and made available for public viewing and downloading." And if towns don't have websites, the State Budget and Control Board will put the info up on its website.

This shows good anticipation of problems down the road, including the cry of unfunded mandate. In fact, the bill as a whole shows excellent anticipation of problems.

For example, it requires "a complete explanation of any codes or acronyms used to identify a payee or an expenditure." No mumbo jumbo to obscure information from ordinary people who lack knowledgeable aides. In addition, the bill requires that the register is "searchable and updated at least once a month." Searchability is very important. Scans of documents make the public do all the work. It should be public servants who do this sort of work, once and for everyone.

Since history is important, each month's info "must be maintained on the Internet website for at least five years." In other words, the info must go up on a timely basis, and it must stay up. This should be required in every online transparency provision.

The bill also anticipates the cry of privacy from government employees, something I think is improper (why can't the public know the salaries and perks of each government employee?), but it's worth getting government employees' support.

The bill also requires credit card statements to be put online, as well as a listing of all full-time positions by class, with full information about any government position with pay over $50,000.

For some reason, budgets and info related to their formation are not required to be put online. For example, the monthly information about how department expenditures relate to what was budgeted (overexpenditures and underexpenditures) is important to give the public a picture of how things are going financially. It appears that the bill requires transparency regarding a great deal of less useful information, overwhelming everyone in the public other than citizen organizations. I would prefer to see the addition of requirements for documents that compile expenditures for budget-related use.

A final thing this bill does well:  it requires this information from every sort of local government: "county, municipal corporation, township, school district, special purpose district, drainage district, or other taxing or governmental unit organized under the laws of the State"

Needless to say, the bill didn't make it out of committee last year. How many government officials want the public looking over their shoulder? But there are few ways to make government more transparent and accountable.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---