|
Transparency cloaked?
Bill forcing school districts to post financial data
online dies
Joshua Wolpe, DDN Staff Writer
Friday, March 20, 2009 |
|
A bill forcing schools to post its
financial records online died in the state House Education
Committee yesterday.
Senate Bill 57, known as the
“Public School Financial Transparency Act,” failed in an 8-5
vote.
The bill, co-sponsored by Sens.
Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, and
Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, would have required school
districts to create a searchable online database of school
revenues and expenditures.
Stephens said she was shocked
after the vote.
“Coloradans deserve to know where
their education tax dollars are being spent,” Stephens said in
a press release. “Increasing government transparency increases
accountability and provides citizens with an effective tool to
monitor, support and have an open dialogue with their
government. It is shocking that majority Democrats refuse to
open up the books of these schools”
There is a national emphasis on
government accountability and spending transparency as the
public has shown frustration with massive bank bailouts and
anger towards corporate greed. Locally, SB 57 seemed to have
built on that emphasis, Stephens argued.
“As I have travelled throughout my
district and across the state, I hear more and more from
people who want and expect greater transparency in state
government,” Stephens said. “SB 57 would have been a major
victory for taxpayers by taking us one step closer to
achieving that goal.”
But those who opposed the bill
were concerned about the financial impacts on school
districts. Some believed the bill would have been an unfunded
mandate on school districts to build a Web site at their
expense without state or federal help.
The cost to compile a financial
record database could be significant during a time of budget
shortfalls and cutbacks. The Colorado Association of School
Executives (CASE) told the Denver Daily News before the
vote yesterday that it was against the legislation, and they
have drawn a distinction between transparency and unnecessary
use of resources.
“We are opposed to the bill, but
we are not opposed to financial transparency,” said Bruce
Caughey, deputy executive director of CASE. “There is already
information made available to the public that provides clear
information on district budgets. This requirement will be
taking away money that could be spent in classrooms. I was
talking to a CFO of a district in Colorado Springs – they have
about 10,000 expenditure transactions per month, and the
amended version of this bill would require each transaction to
have a notation on it. This will be a major resource
requirement at a time when we are cutting budgets.”
Proponents of the bill argued that
the transparency would have saved money in the long
run.
“This gives school districts the
opportunity to be more competitive,” said Amy Oliver, director
of operation for the Independence Institute, before the vote
yesterday. “Vendors will be able to see what districts are
paying and may be able to offer the same service for a better
price.”
Oliver went on to say that since
the bill died, school districts face the possibility of
private citizens putting school spending figures of their
choosing online, since it is public information, which may not
paint the full picture.
“The transparency train has left
the station,” she said. “They (districts) can either be on
board and be influential or have a hundred activists putting
up their own site using only the information that they find
relevant.”
|
