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– [email protected]– Phone: (o) 505 476 3887 (c) 505 629 8420