Kentucky Gets an "A" in Online Transparency for Government Spending Info

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group gave Kentucky top marks for effectiveness in providing online access to government spending information. Kentucky was the only state to earn an "A" in the category. Kentucky updates information twice daily on state agency budgets, salary information for state employees, and databases for grants, contracts, and line-item expenditures.

At least 32 states currently provide online access to government expenditures.

Click here for more information.

NFOIC Summit: Fiscal transparency

Charles Glasser, global media counsel for Bloomberg News; James Nobles, legislative auditor for the State of Minnesota; and Rebecca Otto, auditor for the State of Minnesota spoke about the secrecy surrounding the bank bailout and other fiscal transparency issues. Jane Kirtley, Silha professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism & Mass Communication moderated. Here are the notes from this NFOIC Summit session:

Charles Glasser on the Bloomberg lawsuit:

• Glasser explains the "great freak-out of 2008" as follows. A network of banks borrow money from the Federal Reserve each night. The money's distributed through a discount window. Bank X says we need $200,000 until tomorrow so our checks clear. That discount window number is public. It's released every morning by the Treasury. The number usually hovers between $1 and $4 million a night. For the federal government, that’s not big money.
• Mark Pittman saw this number climbing. He noticed that the overnight window ballooned to $400 million inside two weeks. He called the Federal Reserve, which said that information is proprietary and can't be released. The Federal Reserve is lending public money to private banks but saying it doesn't have to disclose the criteria for collateral. What did the federal government take in return as a promise for your money? And on what terms was your money given and to whom?
• Bloomberg filed the lawsuit in November, and it's still under advisement. The suit's been assigned to a friend-of-the-press judge in the southern district, so Bloomberg is hopeful.
• Glasser said the fact that Bloomberg had to file this suit is something in and of itself that should raise your ire.
• Great credit goes to Matt Winkler and Mike Bloomberg, who from day one told reporters and editors to do the right thing and they'd deal with the cost later. So far the cost is estimated at $125,000.
• Two weeks after Bloomberg filed the lawsuit, FOX News announced that it was suing the federal government without any mention of Bloomberg. "The boat is always big enough," Glasser said. The more people involved, the better.
• The best federal agency to comply with FOIA requests was the Department of Defense, and this was under the Bush administration. The Securities and Exchange Commission rated the worst. It's the one federal agency that was created to promote transparency and fairness in the market.
• Bloomberg filed a FOIA letter to the Board of Governors for records on how much money was lent in a certain time period and under what terms. It resulted in a de facto denial. The board didn't respond. Bloomberg kept at them and received a response 30 days late. It said the material is considered proprietary trade secret and would cause harm to the parties involved. The Fed was basically saying if the public knew which banks were in trouble, the banks would get in trouble because of a run. In the meantime, the Troubled Asset Relief Program was announced. Bloomberg noticed that when a company announced that it was applying for TARP, its stock would jump. Investors felt better with a company that had the backing of the federal government. Therefore, this argument that knowing what banks were bailed out would cause competitive harm makes no sense.
• Bloomberg is now hoping to at least prove that the Board of Governors is FOIA-able.
  
• Bloomberg has launched a new iniative that has tasked all investigative reporters to use FOIA aggressively. In the Bloomberg terminals are built-in internal functions called FOIA Go, which provides guidelines and templates for FOI requests in most states and some nations.

Minnesota auditing:

• Rebecca Otto oversees local government spending. She helped revamp reports by telling her staff that if no one understands them, we're not doing our job. She aimed to make them understandable and nonpartisan. Her office did that by creating easy-to-read executive summaries with the report's most important information and references to page numbers of the report.
• Her office as overhauled the Web site so that audits and special investigations were easy to find online. She asked the media to sign up the her office's weekly newsletter, and she works closely with reporters to help them ensure their stories are accurate.
• When her office audits local governments, the audits are public. It's not as transparent when private CPAs audit local government. Their papers are sometimes proprietary. The same thing with special investigations done by her office versus by private investigators.
• James Nobles audits state government and outline four things needed for good government.

1. Strong laws that require records to be open. Minnesota has a presumption that all government data is public unless specifically classified by law as otherwise. Nobles would like to get to the point where citizens would have access to raw data related to the state's accounting system. The problem is how to also protect for privacy.
   
2. Active, vigorous citizen participation in government.
3. A vigorous media. Nobles worries about the diminished resources of media and whether investigative work will continue.
4. Paid agents of accountability. It's important in every state that there are independent agents to dig out data about how the government is spending money.
   

Great resources:

• States for a Transparent and Accountable Recovery
• Bailout Watch

Bloomberg argues that taxpayers are 'involuntary investors' who need bailout info

Yesterday, Bloomberg News filed its Memo of Law for Summary Judgment, which argues that as "involuntary investors," taxpayers should have access to information on which U.S. banks were provided emergency funding. Banks have opposed the release of this data because of its potential to "fuel market speculation and rumors." Bloomberg replied that “these speculative injuries relate only to the reactions of customers, shareholders and other members of the public, not to competitors’ use of the borrowers’ proprietary information to their advantage,” the exception to disclosure under the FOIA law. Bloomberg data indicates that more than $12.8 trillion in government loans, spending or guarantees have been used to rescue the financial system since August 2007.

The Federal Reserve should identify U.S. banks funded by its emergency lending because taxpayers are “involuntary investors” who need to know the risks, Bloomberg LP said today in a court filing.

The Fed refuses to name the borrowers, the amounts of loans or assets banks put up as collateral under 11 programs, arguing that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg, the closely held New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued Nov. 7 under the Freedom of Information Act on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.

“The Board’s arguments are based on wispy speculation, lack evidentiary support and are contradicted by economic theory,” said Thomas Golden and Jared Cohen, lawyers with New York-based Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, in a motion asking the judge to require disclosure. “These government actions, which have been shrouded in secrecy, are at the heart of Bloomberg’s FOIA requests.”

More here.

How do you define transparency?

The following essay from GovernmentExecutive.com provides an interesting look at what federal agencies really think about transparency. The story refers to a survey in which 90 percent of 452 federal managers "viewed transparency as providing facts and figures on project results and findings," not necessarily providing the supporting data and documents behind results. Only 26 percent considered providing meeting minutes in their definition of transparency.

When President Obama issued his Day One memos instructing members of his administration to operate under principles of openness to spur citizen engagement, government watchdogs cheered. They hailed the call - a nod to his campaign promise to make government more transparent - as unprecedented and said it was a welcome change from the past eight years.

But in the weeks since Obama's pledge that transparency would be a touchstone of his presidency, policy watchers have turned their attention to the details. What exactly is government transparency? How is it interpreted by those inside government who need to execute it? How will it be measured? What will it look like to the public?

Those questions are hard to answer, and the responses depend largely on who you are. Academics and good government advocates believe agencies should provide their raw data and internal evaluations of policies so the public can dig into the information to find answers to their own questions. Others believe agencies must impose order to the data so the public can easily draw conclusions. Still others believe the Obama administration should choose to show the results of programs and initiatives, and not provide the supporting data, documents or internal discussions on the thinking behind their decisions or what led to a particular outcome.

More here.

Coalitions form to track stimulus spending

National Journal Online reports the "growing fiscal oversight craze both on and off Capitol Hill." Thirty groups have "banded together" to create the Coalition for an Accountable Recovery. Another smaller group, Bailout Watch, was spearheaded by OMB Watch. George Mason University has created a "Stimulus Watch" wiki, and House GOP Whip Eric Cantor announced a "stimulus-watch program" encouraging reports on how contractors and agencies spend the $787 billion.

As federal spending on bailouts and the economic stimulus soars into the trillions, the Obama administration faces growing pressure to account for just where all those taxpayer dollars are going.

"To spend that much money that quickly is inviting fraud and abuse," warned Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight. Her group is one of 30 that have banded together to form the new Coalition for an Accountable Recovery. It's a diverse alliance of anti-tax activists, community organizers and government transparency watchdogs all tracking the $787 billion stimulus package.

The coalition of strange bedfellows brings together progressives, libertarians and conservatives, noted Gary D. Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, which co-chairs CAR with Good Jobs First, a policy center promoting accountability in economic development. Other coalition members include the Center for Cities and Schools, Public Citizen and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

More here.

Fla. commission lays out wish list for open government improvements

Florida's Commission on Open Government Reform released its 2009 report, which both assesses and offers recommendations on Sunshine Law issues, such as exemptions, fees, the impact of information technology, fiscal transparency, compliance and training.

More here.

Bill calls for Iowa Web site that tracks tax money

President Obama's call for government transparency has trickled down to Iowa, where a bill was introduced to create a Web site containing easy-to-navigate data on taxpayer dollars. Republican supporters are optimistic about the site, which would be modeled after similar endeavors in other states. However, one Democratic senator has already raised concerns that funding a $40,000 Web site will be difficult in the face of a tight state budget.

The state of Iowa would have to launch a searchable Web site available to the public to catalog how tax dollars are spent under a bill proposed Wednesday in the Iowa Legislature.

Republican supporters in both houses of the Legislature said during a news conference at the Statehouse that such a Web site would allow for greater transparency in state government by turning all of Iowa’s citizens into budget watchdogs.

They likened keeping track of taxpayer dollars in Iowa to searching through a maze, but they said the proposed Web site would streamline the process.

More here.

A Column on TARP Argues that it is well, less than transparent

I read with interest the Jan. 6 article, “Iowa banks apply for ‘troubled asset’ funds,” by Bob Zientara, referring to the government bailout, “Troubled Assets Relief Program,” or TARP, which I have labeled “The Traitorous American Robbery Program.”

You may agree with that bold statement once you fathom the fine print about TARP and the $700 billion bailout plan, sold to the public as necessary to save the U.S. economy and with it, homes and jobs.

This is a story largely overlooked by the national media, which I monitor not only as director of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa State University, but also as an editor for the journalism social network, NewsTrust.net.

That latter activity has provided me with a new outlook on the state of journalism and the economy because I read dozens of newspapers in the course of a week, getting a global perspective on how news events affect us locally.

In a Dec. 22 report titled “Where’d the Bailout Money Go? Shhhh, It’s a Secret,” Matt Apuzzo of The Associated Press investigated 21 banks receiving $1 billion or more each of taxpayer funds, disclosing that bank officers refused to supply any answers.

Banks operating in Iowa also have applied for TARP funds. But as Tribune reporter Zientara learned, even Tom Gronstal, superintendent of the Iowa Division of Banking, would not disclose the identities of those 26 Iowa chartered banks, citing confidentiality rules.

More here.