Lawmakers must practice transparency they preach

An article in the Deseret News was critical of Utah's Transparency website By John Florez was Published: Monday, June 15, 2009 12:36 a.m. MDT (read full article here)

The author starts out by saying that the website is a good idea:

"Transparency. Great idea. Who could be against open and accountable government?

Utah legislators might also find it the best stress-reduction medicine as they conduct business. The 2008 legislature passed SB38, which lets taxpayers see how each state agency spends its money. It was touted as a law that would expose abuse and fraud, that would lead to good governance and is critical "for an informed citizenry." Lawmakers should try it themselves."

But then, he vents his frustration.

"Right now, it's an exercise in futility that may lull citizens into believing the $115,000 cost of that legislation improves honesty in government. As of now, the transparency program only reports on where agencies spend money, not results."

The author makes the following points about Utah's Transparency website:
* The website shows lots of data

* What can an average citizen do if they discover something they don't like? (There is an email address listed on every transaction detail page where anyone can email a question. Also, citizens can still call up their elected officials to point out concerns)

* The website does not display results, only expenses (What type of results would he like to see? With approximately 50 state agencies focused on very different goals, the results don't translate uniformly into a standard accounting package. Additionally, the Governor's office has created a website to measure the performance of each state agency. The transparency website simple gives some context for the performance website.)

* The site does not give a view into Legislator's ethics & honesty

* People don't trust their government or elected officials

* The site does not display campaign finances (the state already has a campaign finance reporting website)

* The site does not display bills sponsored by legislators or conflicts of interest (the state has a detailed legislation website where all that data is posted)

* The site overwhelms citizens with data that has no value

* Lawmakers need to apply the same level of transparency to themselves as they have to the rest of the state (A) they already do and B) didn't he just say it had no value?)

So, my summary of John's article is that Utah's transparency website is an exercise in futility because it provides to much useless information, but it would be better if the site digested a lot more information, and told him exactly which legislator's he can trust.

My response to John is that,
A) The purpose of the transparency site is to take raw accounting records and post them online for public use.
B) The other information he is looking for regarding legislator's transparency already exists and is linked to directly from the transparency website.
C) I, as an average citizen don't trust any analysis until I can see the supporting evidence. This website is simply the supporting evidence. Now, when the government makes some sort of statement or claim of success, I have a tool that can be used to verify the validity of that statement.
D) Purchasing habits by state employees have and will change because anything they purchase is posted online and could be immediately called into question. State employees don't want the appearance of a scandal so they will make more cautious purchases.
E) Vendors of competing products now can see what the state spends and can present lower bids.
F) The watch dog press now has a wealth of information that was previously hidden behind government access procedures that were very time consuming.