Well, I guess it could be worse.
That was my reaction in reading that Nevada scored 34th in the nation "for the quantity and quality of information it provides on how the state is spending its stimulus money." Granted, we did tie at 34th with 12 other states. Put another way, only four states did worse and 12 did just as poorly as we did.
Taking a look at the Nevada Recovery website you have to wonder how that magnificent pie-chart alone didn't get us into the top ten. This coupled with the straight out of 1996 hit counter at the bottom makes me feel the folks at Good Jobs First have made a terrible error in their report.
Then I took a look at the breakdown in Nevada and realized that our zeroes in "allocations by geography", "allocations compared to economic need", "mapping of projects", "project/contract details", "contract award data", "jobs data", "project status", or "currency of info" definitely didn't help us. There isn't a pie-chart -- or hit counter -- big enough in the world to make up for those dismal ratings.
Let's hope Nevada's new, well-paid, stimulus "czar" can help us get our act together and make a better showing next year.
July 30, 2009
Tell us how you really feel, Congressman Conyers
You rarely get to hear what a politician really thinks. Usually their speech is manipulated by p.r. agents, advisors, lawyers and a general sense of self-preservation. That is why Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) statement the other day was quite surprising.
Speaking about the health care bill making its way through Congress, Conyers mocked those who support the apparently radical idea of reading and comprehending what is in the bills Congress votes on.
And that is a perfect distillation of the attitude of too many members in Congress.
Don't have enough time to read a bill? Give yourselves more time. Too much to read? Write shorter bills or break larger bills into smaller components.
What we're asking them to do isn't that hard; they just don't want to do it.
Speaking about the health care bill making its way through Congress, Conyers mocked those who support the apparently radical idea of reading and comprehending what is in the bills Congress votes on.
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Rep. John Conyers. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
And that is a perfect distillation of the attitude of too many members in Congress.
Don't have enough time to read a bill? Give yourselves more time. Too much to read? Write shorter bills or break larger bills into smaller components.
What we're asking them to do isn't that hard; they just don't want to do it.
July 23, 2009
Recovery.gov hams up stimulus information
You may have caught news earlier this week of a surprising entry on Recovery.gov. Listed on the site was a $1.19 million contract for "2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED."
To the casual reader this makes it sound like the government paid close to $600,000 per pound for your garden-variety pork product. As delicious as ham can be, this would have bordered on excessive.
To the relief of government watchers, it was a poor description that led to the confusion. The contract was actually for 760,000 lbs. of ham that came in 2 lb. packages.
But this incident (in which the USDA went so far as to put out a press release) is actually the symptom of a much larger problem.
Five months into the stimulus plan, Recovery.gov has yet to become the comprehensive clearinghouse of stimulus information its backers claimed it would be. There is some data on the site, it still lags behind privately run efforts, such as Recovery.org, in getting out information.
Is there any reason why contract descriptions need to be so short and curt as to obscure their meaning? This administration should use that description box to explain — for each and every item on the site — exactly how its existence will benefit the American people. Of course, that tends to be pretty hard when no one actually read the bill.
(Thanks Sunlight Foundation)
To the casual reader this makes it sound like the government paid close to $600,000 per pound for your garden-variety pork product. As delicious as ham can be, this would have bordered on excessive.
To the relief of government watchers, it was a poor description that led to the confusion. The contract was actually for 760,000 lbs. of ham that came in 2 lb. packages.
But this incident (in which the USDA went so far as to put out a press release) is actually the symptom of a much larger problem.
Five months into the stimulus plan, Recovery.gov has yet to become the comprehensive clearinghouse of stimulus information its backers claimed it would be. There is some data on the site, it still lags behind privately run efforts, such as Recovery.org, in getting out information.
Is there any reason why contract descriptions need to be so short and curt as to obscure their meaning? This administration should use that description box to explain — for each and every item on the site — exactly how its existence will benefit the American people. Of course, that tends to be pretty hard when no one actually read the bill.
(Thanks Sunlight Foundation)
July 16, 2009
Judicial transparency and the Sotomayor nomination
Apropos of the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination hearings the Sunlight Foundation has posted online a primer on the ins and outs of how the hearings will proceed. They've also added a few questions they hope will be asked and answered.
Of special note to transparency activists are questions regarding the availability of Court documents and related items. Does Sotomayor support the online availability of every Supreme Court decision made since the founding of the country? How about making all merits and certiorari briefs also available online instead of just the final opinions?
How does she feel about audio and video recordings of Court proceedings? Does she feel the same as David Souter and his strong displeasure at the idea?
Finally, the Sunlight Foundation asks if she'd support making all proceedings in federal courts (filings, orders, opinions, etc.) freely available online instead of the current PACER system that charges for access.
The people's right to know extends to the judiciary as well. Let's hope Sotomayor feels the same way.
Of special note to transparency activists are questions regarding the availability of Court documents and related items. Does Sotomayor support the online availability of every Supreme Court decision made since the founding of the country? How about making all merits and certiorari briefs also available online instead of just the final opinions?
How does she feel about audio and video recordings of Court proceedings? Does she feel the same as David Souter and his strong displeasure at the idea?
Finally, the Sunlight Foundation asks if she'd support making all proceedings in federal courts (filings, orders, opinions, etc.) freely available online instead of the current PACER system that charges for access.
The people's right to know extends to the judiciary as well. Let's hope Sotomayor feels the same way.
July 9, 2009
Senate sees the light
After the much celebrated decision by the House to disclose its expenditure reports, the Senate may now be following suit.
The amendment would also require the reports to be released in a "searchable, itemized" format. This is a vast improvement over the PDFs that the House is posting. Unfortunately, disclosure won't begin until the 112th Congress begins in 2011.
While the delay is unfortunate and should be shortened, this is another victory for transparency.
Yesterday, Sen. Tom Coburn offered an amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act requiring the Secretary of the Senate to post all expenditure reports online.
The amendment would also require the reports to be released in a "searchable, itemized" format. This is a vast improvement over the PDFs that the House is posting. Unfortunately, disclosure won't begin until the 112th Congress begins in 2011.
While the delay is unfortunate and should be shortened, this is another victory for transparency.
July 2, 2009
Using transparency as a ruse
In the closing days of Nevada's legislative session, a bill was passed that called for the state's Public Employees' Retirement System to make known which of its investments are in companies that do business in Iran.
While we certainly harbor no affection for the ruling regime in Iran and usually applaud any efforts made to open up state government, this particular bill uses transparency as a cover for something far more insidious.
As Geoffrey Lawrence explains:
Read the full commentary for an in-depth look at what is happening in California because of lawmakers' desire to invest in "socially desirable" companies at the expense of more profitable ones.
While we certainly harbor no affection for the ruling regime in Iran and usually applaud any efforts made to open up state government, this particular bill uses transparency as a cover for something far more insidious.
As Geoffrey Lawrence explains:
Constitutional provisions prohibit the Nevada Legislature from dictating how money in the Public Employees' Retirement System is invested. However, in the final days of the recent legislative session, state lawmakers passed a law attempting to do exactly that.
Assembly Bill 493 would require NV PERS to delineate the portion of its investments maintained in companies that do business in Iran. While this requirement does not allow legislators to direct precisely how PERS assets are invested, the intent is clear. As Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford said, "transparency changes behavior."
The Nevada Policy Research Institute has long advocated greater transparency in government and in no way opposes sunlight on the investment decisions of NV PERS. However, legislative leaders have indicated an intention behind Assembly Bill 493 that goes beyond simple transparency. Clearly the intent is to isolate for inspection only some particular investments — those that individual lawmakers either view with personal disdain or see laden with opportunities for political grandstanding.
Read the full commentary for an in-depth look at what is happening in California because of lawmakers' desire to invest in "socially desirable" companies at the expense of more profitable ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
