Looking ahead (2)
Mar 4th, 2008 by JamieB
Thomas Hylton, who won the 1990 Pulitzer Prize for his editorials in the Pottstown Mercury, recently wrote a piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer in which he argues that one critical – and relatively simple – next step in government transparency is to put public information on the web in formats that are easy to access and easy to understand. He makes the telling point that, while the burden of proof may have shifted, the burden of getting the records has not.
After years of promising more transparency in government, Pennsylvania has adopted an open-records law that makes it easier for citizens to obtain documents from state and local agencies. Unfortunately, the legislation still places the burden on individual citizens to acquire information rather than use the Internet to bring information to the people.
Today, virtually every government record is created on a computer. Once digitized, it’s a simple matter to make it available on a Web site. Whole warehouses of information can be stored and accessed from servers that could fit in a storage closet.
Consider local government. Most Pennsylvania counties, municipalities and school districts operate Web sites. But there are gaping differences in their quality. Some Web sites offer a vast array of data. Others offer little more than a directory of departments. If we really want local records to be accessible, the state should establish minimum criteria for documents to appear on municipal Web sites and develop “best practices” for presenting all information clearly.
The possibilities are limitless, but I would start with three essentials: a user-friendly budget; a list of all employees, including job titles and contact information; and the minutes and agendas for all boards and commissions, posted in a timely fashion and archived in a searchable format.
The budget might seem obvious, but most municipal Web sites offer either a superficial summary or an enigmatic version designed for auditors. Pottstown Borough, where I live, publishes a one-page summary covering $45 million in expenditures. There’s a 57-page document available for public inspection at Borough Hall, but it skips such basics as the function of each department, the number of employees, and what they do. There’s no way to figure out how much key people are paid: The earnings of the borough manager and other administrators, for example, are broken up piecemeal in various funds dispersed throughout the budget.
But properly formatted, a budget can illuminate the functions of government better than any other resource.
Although government is often accused of being impersonal, we know that every municipal function is carried out by living, breathing human beings. All of them have names, and most have office phones and e-mail addresses. Every municipality should list its employees, their job titles, and their contact information. Doing so will help humanize government and make it more accessible to the public.
Finally, the minutes and agendas of all boards and commissions should be posted in a timely fashion, archived at least five years back, and organized so that specific items can easily be found through a standard computer search function. That tells you who discussed what, and when.
When local governments must reveal to the world what they’re doing, they may be inspired to do it better.
Hylton’s thoughts echoed those of readers Gordon Davis Jr. and Robert Basile, who posted on this site last November:
. . . .The truth is, wrote Davis, that most of those involved in the discussion on open records seem to have little understanding of the role computing should play in providing access to government records. Today, computer storage is so plentiful and inexpensive that for purposes of this discussion, it might as well be considered free and infinite. It is far less expensive than paper. All government records should be stored permanently (indefinitely) on electronic media. . . . .There is no need to create a large state bureaucracy that exists to send requested documents attached to emails, or even worse, print them out and snail mail them to those requesting information. The public (and yes, even the media) is perfectly capable of finding information as long as it is stored in a well constructed database along with appropriate search technology (think Google).
Please associate me with Gordon’s comments on our legislators’ computer literacy. The debate on open records seems to be going on as though the constitutional convention in Philly were still in session. The quill is gone and the computer has replaced it. But our laws haven’t kept pace with our technology. Put it on the internet with a search engine and let the chips fall where they will. Unfortunately our legislators do know enough about technology to avoid such a transparent environment. And that is why we do need a revision to the current open records law. And that is why the revision needs to be crafted with today’s technology as Gordon as so well articulated.
Other ideas?
Mr. Hylton makes some good points. In Senate Bill 1 (now Act 3 of 2008), we take a serious step toward making spending information available on the Internet. Chapter 17 of the law requires the Treasurer to create and maintain a searchable database of all state contracts worth $5,000 or more. This includes the exectuve branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. This portion of the bill didn’t attract a lot of attention, but I think it will prove to be extremely useful.
In addition, members of the Senate Republican caucus are drafting legislation that would create a complete online budget database. Hopefully, we will be able to see that enacted in 2008 as well.
Finally, Senate Bill 729 (which would require the posting of state and local governmental salary information online) was passed by the Senate in May 2007 and has been in the House State Government Committee since.
Cheers,
Erik Arneson