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.<br>
<br>
It took a scandal, a daily newspaper calling the budget a lie, and my putting budget info on <a href="http://www.northhaveninfo.org/" target="”_blank”">an alternative town government website</a> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
What are local governments doing to solve this problem? For the most
part, nothing or just a little.<br>
<br>
What about states? For the most part, nothing. (See a <a href="http://www.tertiumquids.com/pdfs/state-by-state-analysis-of-budget-tran…; target="”_blank”">state-by
state analysis</a> of budget transparency laws from an anti-tax
organization <a href="http://www.tertiumquids.com/" target="”_blank”">Tertium Quids</a>)<br>
<br>
Which is why <a href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/221.htm" target="”_blank”">a
bill</a> struggling through the South Carolina legislature is so
exciting. Unlike the other state budget transparency laws, it
applies to local governments, as well.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://thesunnews.typepad.com/opinionblog/2010/01/legislative-goals-ope…; target="”_blank”">an
Opinion Blog post</a> Sunday at the <i>Sun News</i> 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 <a href="http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com/checks.html" target="”_blank”">Myrtle Beach's</a>).
But, at least in Myrtle Beach, the <a href="http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com/budget.html" target="”_blank”">budget information</a>
is limited; the only backup documents are from two years ago.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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"<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>