Local GovernmentDisclosure Requirements:

Weighing Redundancy/ Emphasizing Effi ciency

By Natalie Davila, Mike Klemens and Kara MorettoKDM Consulting, Inc.

March 15, 2016

Manufacturing Center as well as the Director of Economic Research for the City of Chicago’s Department of Planning and Development. She is currently an adjunct faculty member at DePaul University. Natalie holds a Bachelor’s degree from Queen’s University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a Master’s degree in Applied Economics from the University of Michigan, and a Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis from the University of Illinois in Chicago.

Kara MorettoKDM Consulting Associate

Kara has over 23 years of progressive tax administra on experience including a s nt as head of the Offi ce of Local Government Services. She has exper se in Illinois specifi c legisla ve research and extensive knowledge of the Illinois property tax system.

In her capacity as Illinois’ property tax administrator, Kara had direct oversight of annual property tax programs including supervision of the state’s CAMA system and cost schedule development, sales ra o studies, county equaliza on factors, homestead exemp ons, the property tax extension limita on law and other rate limits, and interpre ng statutes. She made extensive use of the department’s website to communicate with local offi cials and the public. Kara holds Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from the University of Illinois-Springfi eld.

KDM Consulting Inc.

KDM Consul ng conducts data driven tax policy analysis, economic research and fi scal policy analysis. More detail at www.taxpolicyissues.com.

Michael D. KlemensKDM Consulting President

Mike worked in the Director’s Offi ce at the Illinois Department of Revenue for 20 years in an assortment of tax policy related roles, re ring in 2012 as Manager of Policy and Communica ons where he oversaw the development of the department’s web presence.

In 2012 Mike established KDM Consul ng, which works extensively with the Taxpayers’ Federa on of Illinois. His areas of tax exper se include property tax, property and sales tax exemp ons and taxes that the state administers for local governments, together with a broad general knowledge of the 75+ taxes and programs administered by the department. Mike holds a Bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College and a Master’s degree from Sangamon State University.

Dr. Natalie DavilaKDM Consulting Economist

Natalie has more than 20 years of experience in the formula on and execu on of data-driven tax and economic development research, strategies and policies. For the past two years she has worked as a consultant on state and local tax administra on, policy and economic development projects.

Natalie was the Research Director at the Illinois Department of Revenue from 2003 to 2013, where she championed use of the Internet to distribute Department research and policy analysis. Natalie has also held the positon of Director of Economic Evalua on and Market Research for the Chicago

Local Government Disclosure Requirements

About the Authors

Local Government Disclosure Requirements Page 1

Executive Summary

An independent review of Illinois local government websites by an organiza on that promotes transparency in government websites, Sunshine Review, gave Illinois local governments high marks for their websites.

Illinois state government already imposes a host of repor ng requirements on local governments. We iden fi ed 571 statutory requirements to disclose via various means 763 separate pieces of informa on. (We refer to these as “transparency-related” no fi ca ons.)

More than half the exis ng requirements involve publishing a “legal no ce” in newspapers, where circula on and readership is declining.

Many of the current proposals are redundant. Much of the informa on proposed to be posted on local governments’ websites is already available on the Internet.

Much of the exis ng informa on available on the Internet was done at local taxpayer expense. Redundant requirements would be ineffi cient and a waste of taxpayer’s money.

No evidence exists of a empts to iden fy gaps in current informa on available or comple on of cost-benefi t analyses to assure that taxpayers’ money is being spent effi ciently.

This report was commissioned by a consor um of local government associa ons to analyze pos ng, repor ng and publica on requirements for Illinois local governments and to examine the concept proposed in various bills before the General Assembly that would impose redundant Internet pos ng requirements on Illinois local governments. The study fi nds that:

rereadaderershshipippp iis dde lcliiniing.g

Page 2 Local Government Disclosure Requirements

Introduction

were, in alphabe cal order, California, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Washington. Below are the results for Illinois in 2013.

When compared to other states, school districts in only three states received a higher grade than those in Illinois.

Ballotpedia has ceased doing the type of interstate comparisons done on Sunshinereview.org, but has incorporated the Sunshine Review criteria in its evalua on of websites. In discussing the future of government transparency in its 2013 report, Sunshine Review recognized that costs should be considered when it discussed federal legisla on that would spark new state regula on of local data, observing,

“while that could be a possible long-term benefi t, such legisla on could lead to a short-term increase in spending on data that is already available to ci zens.” 1

ILLINOIS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GET HIGH MARKS FOR INTERNET TRANSPARENCY

Illinois local governments have embraced the Internet as an eff ec ve and effi cient way to get informa on to their ci zens. Illinois local governments provide a signifi cant amount of informa on, both on the Internet and via other means, to keep their ci zens informed about upcoming mee ngs, schedules, services, where to get help, fi nancial informa on and related records, along with other recurrent ques ons that would have to be answered individually when ci zens inquired or fi led a Freedom of Informa on request.

An independent na onal review of government websites has given Illinois state and local governments among the highest ra ngs in the country. In the most recent publicly available government transparency study by the Sunshine Review group (since absorbed by Ballotpedia), the websites of Illinois state and local governments scored in the top fi ve across the country. The fi ve states earning an overall “exceeds expecta ons”

Overall State County City School DistrictExceeds Expecta ons > above average > above average above average above average

Source: h p://sunshinereview.org/images/0/06/2013_Transparency_Report_Card.pdf

Findings

This report was commissioned by a consor um of local government associa ons to analyze pos ng, repor ng and publica on requirements for Illinois local governments. It was undertaken to provide context for a number of bills introduced in the General Assembly that would impose signifi cant addi onal Internet pos ng requirements on local governments. The study looks at a myriad of “transparency-related” repor ng requirements and details the signifi cant amount of informa on already made available to Illinoisans.

Local Government Disclosure Requirements Page 3

references that require 763 diff erent instances of repor ng are detailed in Appendix A.

Table 1 iden fi es the diff erent methods of repor ng that are required of Illinois local governments and whether that no fi ca on is by public pos ng, newspaper legal no ce, Internet publica on or some other manner.

We found extensive “transparency-related” repor ng requirements sca ered throughout the state laws governing the 10 types of local governments that we examined: Municipali es, Schools, Coun es, Fire Protec on Districts, Park Districts, Community College Districts, Townships, Road Districts, Library Districts and Sanitary Districts along with other state laws. The 571 statutory

TABLE 1: MEANS OF PUBLICATION*Unit of Government/Statute Public Newspaper Web Other TotalGeneral Elec on Law 5 27 1 1 34Open Mee ngs 8 2 4 0 14Public Funds Statement Act 0 1 0 1 2Property Tax Code 4 20 1 3 28Local Government 3 7 2 3 15FOIA 1 0 1 0 2Coun es 13 67 5 15 100Municipali es 53 136 14 34 237Townships 9 15 1 3 28Schools 13 47 24 26 110Libraries 18 19 2 7 46Community Colleges 2 13 0 4 19Park Districts 7 15 0 9 31Fire Protec on 13 25 2 7 47Road Districts 8 14 0 3 25Sanitary Districts 6 14 0 5 25Total 163 422 57 121 763*Note that there may more than one method of publica on required by Statute

OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED TO MEET EXTENSIVE STATE REQUIREMENTS

publica ons via the Internet in lieu of in newspapers. That has sparked a ba le between newspapers, who are feeling circula on and adver sing revenue squeezes, and local governments, which are facing fi nancial squeezes.

Rick Edmonds, wri ng on a blog for the Poynter Ins tute, a St. Petersburg–based organiza on that supports journalism, reviewed eff orts to cut back legal no ces in a pos ng headlined,

As Table 1 demonstrates, the most common state statutory requirement for disclosure is publica on of a newspaper legal no ce. That requirement persists as newspaper readership is declining, par cularly among younger people. Studies show that daily readership has declined from 44 percent to 20 percent in the 25 to 34 age range and from 72 to 52 percent in the over 65 range.2 Across the country, local governments have pushed back on the expenses involved and sought to make the

EVOLVING METHODS OF COMMUNICATION

Page 4 Local Government Disclosure Requirements

newspapers are increasingly facing a reality of online-only public no ces.”4

In Illinois, the costs to Illinois local governments are high, par cularly for larger no ces. An internal Kane County study showed that in 2015, a general assessment year in which the county is required to publish a list of the assessments for each parcel of property in the county, the cost to taxpayers was $154,303. The study characterized publica on of the assessment lists as “an an quated process that provides limited informa on to an increasingly small pool of newspaper subscribers.”

“New revenue threat looms as newspapers’ legal no ce franchise comes under fresh pressure from cash-strapped states.”3

As part of its Public Policy and Funding the News Project, the Annenberg Center on Communica ons at the University of Southern California highlighted the key issues in comparing Arizona and Pennsylvania. Author Ma hew Weber concluded:

“This brief in no way advocates for the demise of public no ces, yet in an era of cost cu ng and online informa on distribu on,

EXAMPLES OF INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE INTERNET TODAY

Below are examples of the extensive data that is already available online:

Comptroller

For units of local governments, the Comptroller’s Local Government Warehouse displays three years’ informa on from the Annual Financial Report, including:

• Assets • Audit Requirement and CPA Valida on• Capital Spending• Component Units• Contact Informa on• Debt Limita ons• Expenditures• Fund Balances• Fund Spending• Indebtedness • Payments to Other Governments• Pension/Re rement Benefi ts Status• Popula on/EAV/Employees• Repor ng• Revenue

(See h p://warehouse.illinoiscomptroller.com/).

The worksheet for the Annual Financial Report local governments must fi ll out annually contains approximately 1,500 separate data items each year.

The Comptroller’s Local Government Warehouse also displays, for each unit of government, the last three annual audits of the government and, for municipalities, any TIF district reports. The application has a feature that allows comparison to another unit of government so a resident can compare, for example, the village’s spending to that of a neighboring village. And the Comptroller’s Local Government Warehouse allows a researcher to download the entire file for all governments in Illinois.

The Comptroller produces, from this informa on, an annual Fiscal Responsibility Report Card with a stated goal of “increasing government transparency and improving accountability measures.” The report card looks at revenues, spending, debt, fund balances and more for the various units of local government, providing the reader perspec ve on where his or her local governments stand. The 2014 report was 86 pages long, and had reported 99.5 percent compliance with the required fi ling. (See h p://ledger.illinoiscomptroller.com/ledger/assets/File/ReportCard/ReportCard2014.pdf). In sum, we fi nd that local governments devote considerable eff ort to providing informa on about their opera ons.

Local Government Disclosure Requirements Page 5

• Statements of Revenues Received/Revenues (All Funds)

• Statements of Expenditures Disbursed/Expenditures Budget to Actual (All Funds)

• Supplementary Schedules • Federal S mulus - American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Schedule • Schedule of Ad Valorem Tax Receipts • Schedule of Short-Term Debt/Long-Term

Debt • Schedule of Restricted Local Tax Levies

and Selected Revenue Sources • Schedule of Tort Immunity Expenditures• Sta s cal Sec on • Schedule of Capital Outlay and

Deprecia on • Es mated Opera ng Expenditures Per

Pupil and Per Capita Tui on Charge Computa on

• Es mated Indirect Cost Rate for Federal Programs

• Report on Shared Services or Outsourcing• Administra ve Cost Worksheet• Reference Page• Defi cit Reduc on Calcula on• Audit Balancing Schedule• A-133 Single Audit Sec on • Annual Federal Compliance Report

State Board of Elections

The Illinois State Board of Elec ons tracks contribu ons to poli cal candidates and puts their required fi lings online in a centralized and searchable format so that the general public can track who is making or has made contribu ons to a local elected offi cial. (See h ps://www.elec ons.il.gov/campaigndisclosure/contribu onssearchbyallcontribu ons.aspx). The State Board of Elec ons has the legal authority to enforce repor ng of campaign contribu ons.

Secretary of State

The Secretary of State registers lobbyists and tracks their spending (See h ps://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/index/lobbyist/home.html).

Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)

While the Comptroller’s Warehouse has some high level informa on by school district, much more informa on – all of it provided by school districts to the State Board of Educa on (ISBE) – is published on the ISBE website, (See h p://www.isbe.net/sfms/html/fi nancial_archive.htm ) including the Annual Statement of Aff airs that school districts are required to publish. Salary ranges for all employees and a lis ng of each payment for goods and services over $500 are posted.

Besides the Annual Statement of Aff airs, the ISBE website has, again for each school district, the annual fi nancial report that includes a fi nancial profi le, measure of assets and liabili es, 274 lines on a spreadsheet of revenues, by fund, and 355 lines of expenditures. (See h p://www.isbe.net/sfms/html/fi nancial_archive.htm). There is also a breakdown of the property tax levy by fund.

The website also includes a number of reports compiled by ISBE staff from the informa on provided by school districts that allow the ci zen to compare the school district with other school districts on areas of interest like opera ng expense per pupil, per capita tui on charges, gradua on rates, dropout rates, numbers of teachers, etc. A large amount of school performance data also is included.

The fi nancial informa on for school districts available on the Illinois State Board of Educa on’s website is even more detailed than that for other local governments in the Comptroller’s Warehouse and includes:

• Auditor’s Ques onnaire • Financial Profi le Informa on • Financial Profi le Summary• Basic Financial Statements • Statement of Assets and Liabili es

Arising from Cash Transac ons/Statement of Posi on

• Statement of Revenues Received/Revenues, Expenditures Disbursed/Expenditures, Other

• Sources (Uses) and Changes in Fund Balances (All Funds)

Page 6 Local Government Disclosure Requirements

Department of Transporta on allocates the motor fuel tax and posts alloca ons available for coun es, municipali es and road districts, along with the funds shared with local transporta on systems (See h p://www.idot.illinois.gov/transporta on-system/local-transporta on-partners/county-engineers-and-local-public-agencies/m -distribu on/index). Both the Department of Transporta on and the Department of Revenue are charged by law to distribute these monies appropriately and the reports they provide are based upon what they do to fulfi ll that obliga on.

Besides the state and local taxes, the Department of Revenue has extensive informa on on property taxes including, for each taxing district in Illinois, both the assessed value by class of property and property taxes extended by fund (See h p://www.revenue.state.il.us/AboutIdor/TaxStats/PropertyTaxStats/2014/). The Department of Revenue is charged by law with providing this sta s cal informa on and collects, collates and refi nes the data it publishes.

The informa on is retained in a centralized and searchable format that the public can use to access both lobbyists retained by local governments and spending by those lobbyists. Through its licensing process, the Secretary of State has the legal authority to enforce repor ng.

Departments of Revenue and Transportation

A signifi cant part of the taxes that the Department of Revenue collects each year are either done on behalf of or shared with units of local government. The IDOR website has an applica on that provides all tax rates for state-administered taxes in any municipality (and even within that municipality in the case of business districts). See h ps://www.revenue.state.il.us/app/trii/. The website also iden fi es how much income, sales, replacement and telecommunica ons taxes are collected by the department and shared with or returned to specifi c municipali es and coun es. The

VOLUMINOUS INTERNET EXAMPLES

Most of the informa on that proposed legisla on would require local governments to put on their websites is fi nancial data. To give the reader an apprecia on of the amount of data already provided by local governments, we have included screen prints of fi nancial data already posted on the Internet for two local governments. The pos ngs are so large that we put them in separate appendices so they would not interrupt the fl ow of this report. The governments are:

From the Illinois Comptroller’s Warehouse, the City of Springfi eld, in Appendix B.

From the Illinois State Board of Educa on’s website for Wheaton CUSD 200, in Appendix C.

Local Government Disclosure Requirements Page 7

REDUNDANCY IN PROPOSED LEGISLATION

As we have observed, requirements in various bills seeking to mandate Internet publica on on units of local government duplicate informa on already available. In these cases, local taxpayers will pay twice to disclose the same informa on. What follows are fi ve examples (there are many more) of proposed local government Internet-pos ng mandates paired with screen shots that illustrate the informa on is already available:

EXAMPLE AProposed Internet pos ng requirement: “Total Pension Liability”

Example: Urbana 2015 informa on is illustrated for three of the city’s pension systems, Police, Fire and IMRF, from the Comptroller’s Warehouse. The legisla on is redundant.

URBANA CITYPension Funds / Retirement Benefi ts

Field Description (Code) IMRF Police Pension Fire Pension

Report in Whole Numbers 2012 2013 2014 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015Actuarial Valua on Date (500) 12/31/2012 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015

Total Pension Liability / Actuarial Accrued Liability (501)

29,418,581 28,837,834 56,932,200 45,058,874 47,238,793 50,604,149 42,335,397 43,931,004 46,725,593

Total Funded Pension / Actuarial Value of Assets (502)

20,887,296 21,548,985 50,311,493 30,673,996 33,860,394 34,517,135 36,471,176 40,740,802 42,196,016

Total Unfunded Pension Liability (503)

8,531,285 7,288,849 6,620,707 14,384,878 13,378,399 16,087,014 5,864,221 3,190,202 4,529,577

Funded Ra o (504) 71 74.7 88.4 68.1 71.7 68.2 86.1 92.7 90.3

Net Pension Obliga on / Net OPEB Obliga on (505)

103,160 103,160 6,620,707 -5,179,167 13,378,399 16,087,014 -2,386,316 3,190,202 4,529,577

Page 8 Local Government Disclosure Requirements

EXAMPLE BProposed Internet pos ng requirement: “Revenues should be broken out by source, including the broad categories of local, state and federal tax dollars.”

Example: In the Comptroller’s Warehouse, three years’ of detailed revenue data is available. The example that follows from Quincy shows only the general funds and demonstrates that more detailed informa on is already available in the Illinois Comptroller’s Warehouse, making this requirement redundant.

Enter all Amounts in Whole Numbers

General

Local TaxesReport

in Whole Numbers

201t Property Tax 49,496 202t Local Sales Tax 9,516,492 203t U li es Tax 456,612 203a Electric U li es 0 203b Water U li es 0 203c Communica ons U li es 439,226 203d Other U li es (Explain) 17,386 204t Other Taxes (Explain) 0 Intergovernmental Receipts & Grants 211t State Income Tax 3,979,377 212t State Sales Tax 10,357,647 213t State Motor Fuel Tax 0 214t State Replacement Tax 1,257,261 205t State Gaming Tax(es) 169,029 215t Other State Sources (Explain) 36,497 215a General Support 0 215b Public Welfare 0 215c Health and/or Hospitals 0 215d Streets and Highways 13,713 215e Culture and Recrea on 0 215f Housing/Comm. Development 11,200 215g Water Supply System 0 215h Electric/Gas Power System 0 215i Mass Transit 0 215j Other (Explain) 11,584 225t Federal Sources 79,179 225a General Support 2,557

226t Other Intergovernmental Sources (Explain)

0

Other Sources 231t Licenses and Permits 422,873 233t Fines and Forfeitures 486,606 234t Charges for Services 502,318 234a Water U li es 0 234b Gas U li es 0 234c Electric U li es 0 234d Transit U li es 0

234e Sewer U li es 0 234f Refuse and Disposal Charges 0 234g Parking 4,575 234h Housing 47,464 234i Highway or Bridge Tolls 0 234j Culture and Recrea on 0 234k Other (Explain) 450,279 235t Interest 16,828 236t Miscellaneous (Explain) 620,124 240t Total Receipts and Revenue 27,950,339

225b Public Welfare 26,838 225c Health and/or Hospitals 0 225d Streets and Highways 49,784 225e Culture and Recrea on 0 225f Housing/Comm. Development 0 225g Water Supply System 0 225h Electric/Gas Power System 0 225i Mass Transit 0 225j Other (Explain) 0

QUINCY CITYCURRENTLY VIEWING 2015

2015 2014 2013

Local Government Disclosure Requirements Page 9

EXAMPLE CProposed Internet pos ng requirement: “Expenditures should be separated into current opera ng, capital and debt service.”

Example: From the Comptroller’s Warehouse, expenditures in the Village of Chatham illustrate an even fi ner breakdown of spending, including special revenue, enterprise revenue, internal service, fi duciary and revenue for component units of the local government. This requirement is redundant.

CHATHAM VILLAGE2015 2014 2013

Disbursements, Expenditures and Expenses

Code General Special Revenue

Capital Project

Debt Service Enterprise

Internal Service Fiduciary

Discretely Presented Component Units

Report in Whole Numbers

270tTotal Expenditures/Expense

4,066,870 534,699 1,889,055 125,400 14,627,246 0 222,809 0

Finances At Your Fingertips• View Pekin’s AFR• Compare Pekin’s Data• TIF Reports• Annual Audits

TIF ReportsTIF Districts for FY 2015Industrial Conservation Park Area TIFTIF Central Bus. Dist.

The 29-page report for the Central Business District TIF District is available to residents of Pekin (and anyone else) by simply clicking on the link. The proposed legisla on is redundant.

EXAMPLE DLegisla on was introduced to impose internet pos ng requirements for “reports required under the Tax Increment Alloca on Redevelopment Act.”

Example:In the Comptroller’s warehouse, municipali es which have TIF districts are already required to provide copies of their annual reports to the Comptroller each year. For Pekin, there are two reports displayed for 2015:

Page 10 Local Government Disclosure Requirements

SCHEDULE OF AD VALOREM TAX RECEIPTS

Descrip on

Taxes Received

7-1-13 Thru 6-30-14

(from 2012 Levy & Prior

Levies) *

Taxes Received (from the

2013 Levy)

Taxes Received

(from 2012 & Prior Levies)

Total Es mated

Taxes (from the 2013

Levy)

Es mated Taxes Due (from the

2013 Levy) (Column B - C) (Column E - C)Educa onal 5,426,185 5,426,185 5,717,585 5,717,585 Opera ons & Maintenance 1,804,056 1,804,056 1,755,643 1,755,643 Debt Services ** 2,263,591 2,263,591 2,358,568 2,358,568 Transporta on 483,727 483,727 501,577 501,577 Municipal Re rement 326,032 326,032 313,393 313,393 Capital Improvements 0 0 0 Working Cash 120,931 120,931 120,044 120,044 Tort Immunity 0 0 0 Fire Preven on & Safety 0 0 0 Leasing Levy 0 0 0 Special Educa on 96,745 96,745 100,365 100,365 Area Voca onal Construc on 0 0 0 Social Security/Medicare Only 326,032 326,032 313,393 313,393 Summer School 0 0 0 Other (Describe & Itemize) 0 0 0 Totals 10,847,299 0 10,847,299 11,180,568 11,180,568

EXAMPLE EProposed Internet pos ng requirement: “gross tax levy for the most recent year”

Example: From the Illinois State Board of Educa on’s website for Rochester Community Unit School District 3A, the previous year’s and current year’s levies by individual fund provides signifi cantly more detail than required by the legisla on, making the legisla on redundant.

Local Government Disclosure Requirements Page 11

Much of the informa on these new legisla ve proposals seek to have added to local governments’ websites already exists on various state agency websites. The informa on, typically provided by local governments, is ve ed, standardized and presented all in one place. The state agencies, which need the data to do their jobs, report high compliance rates by local governments, certainly a more cost-eff ec ve means of gathering data than the threat of ci zen lawsuits envisioned by the “transparency” legisla on.

Transparency could be enhanced by having local governments iden fy on their websites, using statutory determined language, where this informa on is available. Or, legisla on could require local governments to add links from their own websites to the exis ng state agency websites, enhancing transparency while minimizing addi onal costs. State government illustrates how this could be done. When a visitor clicks on the Illinois Transparency and Accountability Portal’s lis ngs for Tax Expenditures, State Contract Database and Annual Financial Reports for Local Government Units, the visitor is linked to the Illinois Comptroller’s website. The major websites that local government could reference in standardized verbiage on their website or link directly to would be the Illinois Comptroller, Secretary of State, State Board of Elec ons, State Board of Educa on, Department of Revenue and Department of Transporta on.

A COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO THE TRANSPARENCY/REDUNDANCY DILEMMA

“ . . . (the) approach typifi ed by the nascent and ambi ous plan by the Obama administra on to make vast amounts of government data available through the www.data.gov site. These types of transparency ini a ves are directed toward the more technically inclined ci zen; researchers, technologists and civic-minded geeks. . . . (but) to truly “democra ze the data” would ul mately require a be er, more conscious eff ort to make this ini a ve more inclusive and par cipatory to all ci zens.”5

One of the themes that the authors have come across in conduc ng this research is the need to present data in a way that is useful for the ci zen who is seeking the informa on. The Comptroller’s Local Government Warehouse, together with their Annual Fiscal Responsibility Report Card, seem to us to refl ect a balance between large amounts of data and placement of that data in a context that is useful to the user.

A report in Government Informa on Quarterly talks about how to make data available, specifi cally,

OBSERVATIONS ON CUSTOMER FOCUS

Page 12 Local Government Disclosure Requirements

All governments – including Illinois local governments – will need to fi nd ways to use emerging technologies to connect with their ci zens. If their resources are ed up mee ng redundant requirements, they will have diffi culty mee ng that challenge. Specifi cally, we fi nd that:

Advocates for website transparency have given Illinois’ state and local governments high marks for transparency in what they already provide on their websites.

There are many requirements for local government “transparency-related” repor ng, including 571 state statutory requirements for 763 pos ngs in either a public place, a newspaper or on a website. (Some requirements involve mul ple pos ngs.) We judge that 61 of these requirements involved signifi cant eff ort (i.e., cost to taxpayers) on the part of the local government.

There is a tremendous amount of data about local governments published on state government websites already. This is data that state agencies obtain from units of local government as part of their regular du es.

Our research indicates that much of the informa on required by proposed legisla on is already posted. More informa on does not assure more transparency. This is par cularly true with respect to newspaper publica on requirements because newspaper circula on is in decline. Redundancy does, however, assure higher costs as in the case of newspaper publica ons.

Legisla on adding or changing current publica on requirements for units of local government should be driven by sta s cally reliable documenta on based on ci zen par cipa on iden fying gaps in current informa on and then refi ned using cost-benefi t analyses to determine best use of taxpayers’ dollars.

Conclusions

Local Government Disclosure Requirements

ENDNOTES

1 h p://sunshinereview.org/images/0/06/2013_Transparency_Report_Card.pdf, accessed December 23.2 Pew Research Center, Journalism and the Media, www.journalism.org, accessed Dec. 31, 2015.3 Rick Edmonds, h p://www.poynter.org/2012/new-threat-to-classifi eds-as-newspapers-legal-no ce-

franchise-comes-under-fresh-pressure-from-cash-strapped-states/161539/, accessed Feb. 14, 20164 “Insult to Injury: The disappearance of public no ces in US newspapers,” Ma hew Weber, h ps://

fundingthenews.usc.edu/fi les/2015/07/6_Carnegie_PublicNo ce.pdf, accessed Feb. 14, 2016,5 “Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and

an -corrup on tools for socie es,” John C. Bertot, Paul T. Jaeger, Jus n M. Grimes, Government Informa on Quarterly, April 27, 2010.

APPENDICES A, B and C: Available at h p://iml.org/page.cfm?key=16572

A REPORT COMMISSIONED BY A CONSORTIUM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS

By Natalie Davila, Mike Klemens and Kara MorettoKDM Consulting, Inc.

March 15, 2016