Presentation on theme: "House Memorial 78 Online Transparency in State Government Presentation to the ITC Steven Yore 12/2/09."— Presentation transcript:
House Memorial 78 Online Transparency in State Government Presentation to the ITC Steven Yore 12/2/09
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 StateName of siteInformation available Fiscal Year available Missouri MAP Missouri Accountability Portal Payroll Expenditures ARRA Stimulus Funds Tax Credits “Who Is Not Paying (taxes)” Current Oklahoma Open Books Information Expenditures Funding Payroll Vendor Current Ohio OAKS Ohio Administrative Knowledge System Combined Annual Financial Report AARA Stimulus Funds Prior Year Current Year Texas Window on State Government Expenditures by Agency, Vendor, and spending category Agency Budget versus Actual Expenditure by Agency Strategy Expenditures by Funding Source Georgia Open Georgia Payroll and Travel Expenses Professional Services Financial Reports Program 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 requirements3 Full-Time-Equivalents Project Length12 Months
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 investment No ongoing maintenance concerns Cons: Loss of control over look and feel Recurring expenses associated with outsourcing Cost$45k professional services Internal resource requirements1.5 Full Time Equivalents Project Length9 Months
Oklahoma – OPENBOOKS
Transparency Activity in 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/)http://www.nd.gov/fiscal/spending/detail/ Inexpensive – 200 to 300 hours of internal resources over 2 months