Adventures in Transparency

Cockroaches famously scurry for their hideouts when the lights come on. Why do they hide? Light brings trouble -- swatting brooms, smashing feet and toxic clouds of pesticide.

In other words, the party's over (for the moment).

Like those apocalypse-proof denizens of the baseboard, governments aren't too keen on the idea of having a light shined on their activities, either. The more exposed their activities are to scrutiny, the more likely someone is to ask uncomfortable questions (Three grand charged to the Holiday Inn? I didn't know they had a presidential suite. They don't? Maybe it was those mini-bar Snickers, then. All of them. On the entire fifth floor).

The move to shine even more light into Virginia's budget is the topic of my latest column. I take a spin through Commonwealth Data Point to see where the money is going, and find lots and lots of data.

But for all the numbers and all the names, one critical piece of the puzzle is missing: Context.

For example, why did someone at VDOT charge over $500 at a Bass Pro Shop? There might be a legitimate reason for this expenditure (after all, how many people still dig up their own night crawlers?). But you'll never find out why the money was spent there, or at any number of tire centers, or hardware stores or newspapers because there's no context for the charge.

Putting the state's finances in perspective is one of the goals of transparency. It will allow some, of course, to say that the holy trinity of waste, fraud and abuse is rampant and needs to be addressed immediately. Others will be able to discern spending patterns -- who the favored vendors are, why spending increases in December, and more. Still others will look at the mess and wonder how they can get in on the good times (cut-rate night crawler salesmen will be beating down VDOT's door at any moment).

The legislature had a shot at passing a wide-ranging transparency bill in this session, but refused. Meanwhile, other states are passing measures either unanimously or by executive order. Some are more comprehensive than others, but all are aimed at the same, general goal:

Turning the lights on, and seeing what scurries toward the baseboard.

Opaque from Top to Bottom

Over at The Caucus, they're talking about making the federal government more transparent using new technology. Whether our betters in DC will ever allow more sunlight to shine on their work remains doubtful:

...Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation, which pushes for more government transparency, said the White House site is mostly full of P.R.-friendly statements.

As with any revolution, Mr. Meinrath said, some uncertainty lies in whether Congress will ever make use of all the Internet tools available to it. “That’s an open question,” he said.

Mr. Glover had a, well, slightly morbid outlook: Congress might not become more technology-forward “until older people are voted out of office or die.”

Danny can be forgiven for his pessimism...particularly if he paid any attention to the push for greater transparency in Virginia government during the current session.

From the White House to Capitol Square, the political class is none too eager to have the masses scrutinizing the books...or letting them know where the books are kept in the first place.

Republicans Finally Squabbling with Democrats Instead of Each Other

As the budget-making drama unfolds in the General Assembly, we're seeing a very different political dynamic at work. In contrast to past years, in which Republicans tore themselves to shreds, Elephant Clan senators and delegates appear to be acting with common purpose. The party conceivably could emerge stronger than when Elephants ruled the chamber under the leadership of nominal Republican John Chichester.

The evidence for change can be seen in what Tyler Whitley and Jeff Schapiro are billing in today's Times-Dispatch as "a revolt" of the state Senate's Republican minority. In a departure from the Senate's traditional "bipartisan comity," they write, seven Republicans on the 16-member Senate Finance Committee opposed the Democrats' proposed revisions to the two-year, $78 billion budget submitted by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.

In contrast to previous years, in which a Chichester-dominated Republican caucus warred with the Republican House caucus, Elephant Clan senators are aligning themselves closely this year with their counterparts in the House. Arguably, Republicans have as much power now as when they supposedly controlled both chambers. As Whitley/Schapiro paraphrases Sen. Charles J. Colgan, D-Prince William: Without bipartisan backing for the Senate version of the budget, the Dems will have little leverage against House negotiators in cobbling a compromise budget.

Most interesting is the change in Sen. William Wampler, R-Bristol, once an ally of Chichester and, like him, a frequent advocate of higher taxes. Now Wampler maintains that the state should cut state agency budgets by six percent instead of raiding the Rainy Day fund and expanding the pre-K program. Chastened by conservative unrest during last year's primaries and freed from the Rasputin-like influence of Chichester, Republican senators appear to be taking up the banner of fiscal conservatism.

The result of this realignment could be the emergence of the Elephant Clan as a genuine spend-less, tax-less party. But the Republicans have a long road to travel before than can rightfully claim that mantle. Until they repudiate the shyster-like mechanisms for raising new transportation funds that they enacted last year -- increasing a wide variety of taxes, fees and fines by small amounts in obscure places in the hope that no one would really notice -- they won't deserve to be taken seriously.

Hiking the gas tax, favored by Senate Democrats, is a far preferable mechanism for raising revenue. The tax is easy to administer, it is transparent, and it encourages people to drive less, thus incrementally reducing the demand for additional improvements. Only when Republicans fully embrace the principles of tax transparency, efficiency and user-pays, will I believe they've had a genuine change of heart.

Update: Seth McLaughlin confirms this analysis in today's Washington Times.

It's no longer House Republicans versus Senate Republicans. It's Republicans versus Democrats. "The dynamics are different now," J. Scott Leake, spokesman for Senate Republicans, told The Washington Times. "You have a divided Senate and united House."

You've Seen Enough

It seems Sens. Cuccinelli and Peterson have run into a roadblock on their way to greater budgetary transparency. In his newsletter, and in his inimitable style, Ken shows us that at least one of his Senate colleagues, Sen. Edd Houck, thinks we've got all the transparency we need right now, thank you:

In our debate on the bill, he said that he doesn’t see any problem with how open our government information is today. Now, remember, Sen. Houck is a Senate Budget Conferee! He has been in the Senate for over 25 years and he has Finance Committee staff at his disposal for his own self-education on budget matters. Do you have that? I didn’t think so.

Sen. Houck went on to say that he was offended by the notion that we needed the bill, as putting in the bill implied that Virginia government was somehow not open and transparent already (I’m not kidding. I mean, I’m funny, but I can’t make this stuff up…). Virginia legislators, much less citizens, cannot find much budget or expenditure information online that’s worth the effort, and it certainly isn’t out there in any organized fashion that makes sensible research possible (forget easy, let’s start with possible…).

I wonder if Senator Houck would accept a challenge to take 10 minutes of his time to see if he can demonstrate that he can in fact find anything about specific expenditures via any online information now available from Virginia Government? Hmmm… I’ll ask. I’ll let you know what I hear back.

Ah the Senate... no matter which party is in charge, it's the grandees who oversee the budget that have the real power. And it seems they are unwilling to allow even the palest glimmer of light to intrude on their fiefdom.

The Push for Greater Transparency

Rick Sincere has an excellent post (compete with video!) of the press conference yesterday at which a proposal to create greater budget transparency was introduced.

It's a good step forward -- Virginians deserve to know where their money is being spent and, perhaps, legislators and others will feel a greater degree of responsibility for ensuring that those funds are spend wisely.

Well I can dream, can't I?

Politically, the measure has an interesting number of supporters. Sens. Cuccinelli and Petersen were on hand to give their backing for it, and they were joined, either in person or by proxy, LTG Bill Bolling, AG Bob McDonnell and a number of Delegates. Where is the Governor in all this? Discussions have taken place with his policy people, so he's at least being kept in the loop, if not yet on board.

I suggest he does. While transparency alone is no guarantee that the worthies will become better stewards of our money, it does create a means through which (some) taxpayers will be able to track spending, question priorities and perhaps even offer constructive feedback. (I can still dream, right?)

Rick pulled this editorial from the Free Lance-Star, which I think frames the matter extremely well:

A couple of existent programs nibble around the edges of what the senator and his co-patrons hope to accomplish. Virginia Performs, an administration creation, rates the progress of state agencies in pursuing quality-of-life goals. The state Auditor of Public Accounts' Commonwealth Data Point, a Web site, paints a broad-brush portrait of how state government operates, including in the budgetary realm. But both programs are deficient in the all-important "fine print" category.

Mr. Kaine should support this transparency initiative, not because it would make his life easier operationally--the measure, for example, would expose to the cyberized world the practice of some state agencies to shift funds among program accounts--but because in principle it's the right and progressive thing to do. The money with which the legislative cardinalate and administration nabobs play government is the people's money. They should be able to see what becomes of it, quickly and easily, every step of the way.

I think the measure's backers had an editorial board with the RTD, too. I couldn't find any mention of it in the online paper today (though Robert Frost manages to get a couple of inches...yeesh).

A Big Step Forward in Budget Transparency

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has improved the presentation of the FY 2009-2010 budget, making it easier for members of the public to analyze. The old format scattered information for (1) expenditures, (2) number of employee positions and (3) capital outlays. The new format combines them on a single web page. You can view any secretariat, or any department within a secretariat, and see any of the three budget categories with a simple click of a tab.

Budget pages also link to departmental strategic plans and performance measures. Check out the presentation here. Drill deep and muck around. It's a tremendous step in the right direction.

Another step in the right direction would be to adopt a proposal championed by Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, which was inspired by the federal government's http://www.usaspending.gov/. The federal website details information about grants and contracts valued at more than $25,000. For example, you can discover that Virginians received $40 billion in federal contracts in fiscal 2006 for everything from telecommunications services to aircraft carriers.

Wrote Cuccinelli in a recent press release:

As part of my effort to make our Commonwealth the most efficiently managed state in the nation, I am introducing legislation this year to create a Virginia counterpart to USASpending.gov. My goal is to give ordinary citizens more opportunities for input into our government by allowing all of us to evaluate where – and how effectively – our tax dollars are being spent. My Virginia budget transparency initiative will bring to our budgeting process a simple tool for the owners of this government – the citizens of Virginia – to determine for themselves where their money is being spent. We require such openness of public companies, why not our own government?

I'd like to see the specifics of what the website would do, but in the abstract the proposal is an excellent one. Budget transparency should be a top goal of open government. Bloggers of all ideological stripes should support this bill!

Watch Out for the "Fully Funding Our Schools" Ploy

The debate over this year's $641 budget shortfall may be a mere prelude to a bigger budget wrangle next year over education spending. Timothy M. Kaine has stumped all over the state for a modest expansion of pre-K programs in Virginia, but that's chump change compared to the real driver of educational spending: the Standards of Quality.

Hints of the debate to come can be gleaned from a recent letter from House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong, D-Martinsville, to House Speaker William J. Howell.

"Next year," Armstrong wrote, "we will have to re-benchmark the Standards of Quality to ensure that our primary and secondary schools remain fully funded. Prominent members of your caucus have said they are opposed to the re-benchmarking of the SOQs, which would significantly jeopardize our schools and childrens' future."

Later in the letter, he wrote: "I am asking that you pledge that we do not shortchange our children's future by cutting primary and secondary education and that we will fully fund our schools."

Refresher course: The SOQs, or standards of quality, are the auto-pilot mechanism by which the standards for educational inputs (student-teacher ratios, number of guidance counselors, that sort of thing) are relentlessly ratcheted higher, and also by which $5.8 billion in state aid to K-12 education program is used to redistribute wealth from Virginia's wealthy municipalities to its poorer municipalities. (See my treatment of this cost driver in "The ABCs of SOQs."

Each "re-benchmarking" according to the dictates of an all-but-indecipherable formula raises the mandated level of funding by hundreds of millions of dollars. Supporters of the educational status quo run around squealing that schools aren't "fully funded" and that "the children" are being short-changed, creating political pressure for ever-higher, and utterly unaccountable spending.

Any increase in K-12 funding next year should be tied to a reform of the funding system. Lil Tuttle with the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, has argued for a new, transparent formula for allocating state aid to public education. The state would provide one "Student Funding Allotment" (SFA) for each student, weighting the allotments for special needs, as follows:

1.9 SFA for severely disabled
1.2 SFA for poverty
1.2 for limited English
1.2 for learning disabled

Such a system would help local school systems cope with lots of poor, disabled and foreign-language kids without the auto-escalator effect of the current formula. What's more, it's so transparent that anyone can understand it. That's precisely why the political class will never change the formula. But it's nice to know that some one in the General Assembly appears to be taking a closer look.

A Report on Privatization

The Reason Foundation's annual report on privatization is now online, covering topics from transportation to education and more.

There's an interesting section on emerging issues -- privatizing state lotteries and government transparency. Strangely, they omit some private attempts at the latter, especially in Virginia through the Waldo-created Richmond Sunlight. Maybe next year.

Rail to Dulles: Focusing on the Bechtel Connection

Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher has picked up on concerns that Bechtel Corporation, the lead contractor in Boston's Big Dig fiasco, is the company in charge of extending Metro rail to Tysons Corner and beyond. He adds a few tidbits to the general knowledge base, quoting Sam Carnaggio, the state's project director for the Metro extension.

Cargaggio understands the widespread concern about Bechtel but defends the company, contending that the state of Massachusetts was mainly to blame for most of the cost overruns. The project, originally slated to cost $4 billion, wound up costing $14 billion. Carnaggio is undoubtedly correct: Governments are tempted to meddle in projects of Big Dig magnitude -- and that's exactly what worries me. What reason do we have to think that Virginia's politicians will be any different?

Writes Fisher:

The real test, Smyth says, is how closely the government will supervise Bechtel's work. Carnaggio agrees and says Virginia will examine every invoice Bechtel submits and conduct inspections to make sure the reported work is really done. ...

Carnaggio concedes that the price of rail to Dulles, now estimated at $5.1 billon, has jumped several times and could go higher. "The price is as fixed as any construction project can be," he says. "Some choices won't be made until 2010; for example, we don't want to fix prices for the stations before then because costs for materials could change, up or down."

Cost estimates for the Rail to Dulles project have ballooned, even though the state has removed key elements such as stairs and pedestrian bridges to keep the price tag within limits that the federal government will help fund. Do you feel reassured? I don't. Either (a) someone will decide to add those elements back in, inflating the cost later, or (b) the lack of improvements will deter ridership, aggravating operating deficits and undermining the logic for building the heavy rail extension in the first place. Take your pick.

Filling the "Black Hole" of Local Disclosure

Ever wish you get do the same financial background checks on candidates for local office as you can for statewide candidates? To pick an example, wouldn't it be cool to know how much money Gerald E. Connolly, chairman of the Fairfax County board of supervisors, has raised in the current campaign cycle and where his money came from?

Well, now you can! (For nine localities, at least.) The Virginia Public Access Project has taken the first step, says Executive Director David Poole, towards "filling the black hole that is local campaign finance disclosure."

So, go here to see that Connolly has raised almost as much money as all other candidates for the Fairfax BOS combined. He has out-raised his two competitors for the at-large seat by $853,000 to... $12,000. As for where the money comes from -- no surprise, here -- more than one-third comes from the real estate/construction industry.

Many thanks to VPAP, and the people who fund it, for making this information available.