House Memorial 78

Online Transparency in State Government

Presentation to the ITC

Steven Yore12/2/09

Background

• Representative Kintigh sponsored HM78• HM78 Requests a study of options for

creating greater transparency in state government by providing an accessible searchable database of State budgets

• The study was completed jointly by the Department of Finance and Administration, the Department of Information Technology, and the Legislative Finance Committee

Methodology

• Six States with transparency websites were selected for study, North Dakota was excluded because it was not dynamic

State Websites Researched

State Name of site Information availableFiscal Year

available

Missouriwww.mapyourtaxes.mo.gov

MAP MissouriAccountability Portal

PayrollExpendituresARRA Stimulus FundsTax Credits“Who Is Not Paying (taxes)”

Current

Oklahomawww.openbooks.ok.gov

Open Books

InformationExpendituresFundingPayrollVendor

Current

Ohiowww.oaks.ohio.gov

OAKSOhioAdministrativeKnowledgeSystem

Combined Annual Financial ReportAARA Stimulus Funds

Prior YearCurrent Year

Texashttp://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/expendlist/cashdrill.php

Window on State Government

Expenditures by Agency, Vendor, and spending category

Agency Budget versus ActualExpenditure by Agency StrategyExpenditures by Funding Source

Georgiahttp://open.georgia.gov/

Open Georgia

Payroll and Travel ExpensesProfessional ServicesFinancial ReportsProgram reviews

2008

Interview of Project Managers

• Of the five remaining states, two were researched in depth

• Interviews with the Missouri and Oklahoma project managers included the following:– Details about technical aspects of the system, – Details about the project,– Costs associated with implementing websites.

Option 1: Missouri

Project: Missouri Accountability Portal (MAP)

Description:

AMS ERP back end. Internally developed database and web front end. Consultants heavily involved early in project. All extract and loads are automated. Extracts pull data from AMS into custom DB2 database that is used for reporting

Pros: Total control over look and feel

Cons: Expensive State is responsible for ongoing maintenance

Cost $300k professional services

Internal resource requirements 3 Full-Time-Equivalents

Project Length 12 Months

Missouri MAP

Option 2

Project: Oklahoma OPENBOOKS

Description:PeopleSoft ERP backend. Extract programs pull from PeopleSoft and load

database in third party outsourced portal environment.

Pros:Very little investmentNo ongoing maintenance concerns

Cons: Loss of control over look and feelRecurring expenses associated with outsourcing

Cost $45k professional services

Internal resource requirements 1.5 Full Time Equivalents

Project Length 9 Months

Oklahoma – OPENBOOKS

Transparency Activityin New Mexico

• HB546 – Online database of state contracts over $20,000. Go Live scheduled for January 1, 2010

• New Mexico Office of Recovery and Reinvestment – Website with reports on stimulus spending in New Mexico.

Preferred Solution

• Creation of Unified “one stop shopping” website that contains all transparency reporting requirements – the Missouri model

• Estimate to complete: $300 to $500 thousand in professional services, 12 months, and 1.5 to 3.5 FTE’s

• Possible savings from leveraging work that was done in Missouri and Oklahoma

Interim Solution until budget becomes available

• Static PFD departmental spending reports that are updated monthly – the North Dakota Model (http://www.nd.gov/fiscal/spending/detail/)

• Inexpensive – 200 to 300 hours of internal resources over 2 months

• Questions

• Contact Info:– Steven Yore, SHARE System Manager– Stevene.yore@state.nm.us– Phone: (o) 505 476 3887 (c) 505 629 8420