CherryRoad Technologies Steve Brooks – Managing Director August 12, 2013 Citizen Transparency Portals 2013 – Best Practices & Success Stories

2 About CherryRoad Technologies

3 Objectives of this Presentation  The State of State Transparency –The Requirements –Who is Watching?  Best Practices  Solution Architecture  Case Study – State of Oklahoma

4 Transparency – The Requirements Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Open Data Act – 201X Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Open Data Act – 201X State Level  State Legislation  Example: AZ HB2282 – 5/10/2010 State Level  State Legislation  Example: AZ HB2282 – 5/10/2010 Local Level  State Directives  City/County Government  School Boards Local Level  State Directives  City/County Government  School Boards When was ‘Citizen Transparency’ first mentioned?

5 Transparency – The Requirements Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Open Data Act – 201X Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Open Data Act – 201X State Level  State Legislation  Example: AZ HB2282 – 5/10/2010 State Level  State Legislation  Example: AZ HB2282 – 5/10/2010 Local Level  State Directives  City/County Government  School Boards Local Level  State Directives  City/County Government  School Boards “We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1802

6 Transparency – The Requirements Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X

7 Transparency – The Requirements Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X Who sponsored the Senate Bill?

8 Transparency – The Requirements Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X Senators Barack Obama and John McCainBarack ObamaJohn McCain (along with Tom Coburn and Tom Carper )Tom CoburnTom Carper

9 Transparency – The Requirements Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X State Level  State Legislation  Example: AZ HB2282 – 5/10/2010 State Level  State Legislation  Example: AZ HB2282 – 5/10/2010

10 Transparency – The Requirements Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X Federal Level  Freedom of Information Act – 1966  Sunshine Act – 1976  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency (FFATA) – 2006  Open Government Directive – 2008  America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – 2009  Data Act – 201X State Level  State Legislation  Example: AZ HB2282 – 5/10/2010 State Level  State Legislation  Example: AZ HB2282 – 5/10/2010 Local Level  State Directives  City/County Governments  School Boards Local Level  State Directives  City/County Governments  School Boards

11 Who’s Watching? Organization’s Goal:  Collect, share, review and evaluate government transparency efforts  Collaborate with governments, organizations and individuals - all in the cause of an informed citizenry and an accountable government

12 Who’s Watching? Organization’s Goal:  Collect, share, review and evaluate government transparency efforts  Collaborate with governments, organizations and individuals - all in the cause of an informed citizenry and an accountable government

13 Impact of Watch Groups  Reviewing and evaluating government transparency efforts  Collect, share and evaluate transparency information  Collaborate with individuals and organizations in the cause of an informed citizenry and an accountable government

14 Impact of Watching Organizations  Reviewing and evaluating government transparency efforts  Collect, share and evaluate transparency information  Collaborate with individuals and organizations in the cause of an informed citizenry and an accountable government

15 Impact of Watching Organizations

16 U.S. PIRG Following the Money 2013

17 U.S. PIRG Following the Money 2013 Highlights of 2013 Report  All 50 states have a checkbook-level web capability  48 states offer searchable info  Advanced tools added:  Integration of Local Government data  Interactive mapping tools  Evaluation Grades: Grade A1577 B64149 C D F181055

18 U.S. PIRG Following the Money 2013 Achieving Transparency 2.0  Encompassing  User-Friendly  Web/Portal  One-Stop  Search all expenditures on a single site  One-Click Searchable and Downloadable  Search with a single query  Sort data  Download for offline analysis

19 Best Practices Defined  Checkbook-Level view  payments to vendors, grants, tax credits, discretionary spending  Searchability  by vendor, by keyword, by activity and by agency or department  Downloadable  Copies of Contracts  Inclusion of other data outside of usual budget and accounting systems  Improved (extended) historical data  Integration of Local Government details  Mapping (Spatial) tools  User Feedback

20 Solution Architecture Financial Systems OLTP WEBSITEWEBSITE External User Architecture: Early Approaches

21 Solution Architecture Financial Systems HR Systems Other Systems OLTP Warehouse or Data Store Reporting Platform and/or BI Tools PORTALPORTAL External User Internal User Internal User Architecture: ‘To Be’

22 The State of Oklahoma – A Success Story Case Study 2013 Grade: A Grade: C Grade: C- Office of Management & Enterprise Services

23 The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives 2007 Legislation Requiring a transparency website by Jan 2008 (OpenBooks) Initial roll-out contained basic expenditure & funding data, payroll data and vendor payments > $5,000 23

24 The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives 2007 Legislation Requiring a transparency website by Jan 2008 (OpenBooks) Initial roll-out contained basic expenditure & funding data, payroll data and vendor payments > $5,000 24

25 The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives OpenBooks Update: Changed to business intelligence technology Improved functionality: search options, drill down and downloads Included all vendor payments OpenBooks Update: Added pcard data, tax credits and tax delinquencies 25

26 The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives data.ok.gov – Convenience data in raw format forms.ok.gov - Central repository for state government forms documents.ok.gov - Central repository for state government documents/ reports HB Agency consolidation - Consolidated several agencies into OMES and created the Performance & Efficiencies division HB IT Consolidation - Consolidated IT resources and personnel into OMES 26

27 The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives OpenBooks Updates: Added road funding Added statewide contract & requisition search Added links to local government websites Added more years of historical expenditure data

28 The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives OKSTATESTAT.ok.gov – Performance Metrics Online Checkbook for State Treasurer’s Office

29 The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives OKSTATESTAT.ok.gov – Performance Metrics Online Checkbook for State Treasurer’s Office 29

30 OKSTATESTAT.ok.gov – Performance Metrics Online Checkbook for State Treasurer’s Office Your Logo The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives

31 Your Logo The State of Oklahoma – Transparency Initiatives Oklahoma Achievements  Encompassing  User-Friendly Portal  One-Stop / One-Click  Checkbook-Level view  Searchable / downloadable  Contracts included  Extended historical data  Integration of Local Government details  User Feedback Oklahoma Achievements  Encompassing  User-Friendly Portal  One-Stop / One-Click  Checkbook-Level view  Searchable / downloadable  Contracts included  Extended historical data  Integration of Local Government details  User Feedback 31

32  Transparency is not going away  Citizens will be more technologically savvy, with increased expectations  Watch Groups will continue  Technology can drive both feature/function and content In Conclusion