Not finding what you're looking for? Search with Google

• Article
• Discussion

• Page
• Discussion
• Edit
• History

Evaluation of California state website

A-
Budget Y Usability Y Elected Officials Y Administrative Officials Y Ethics Y Audits Y Contracts Y Lobbying P Public records Y Taxes Y Transparency grading process

CA.gov is the website for the state of California.

[edit] Website evaluation

In 2010 and 2011, the California earned a Sunny Award for having a perfect website transparency score.

• Main article: Evaluation of state websites or see sample transparency legislation at the Sunshine Standard

This website was reviewed on January 12, 2012.

[edit] The good

• Tax information is available.^[1]
• Budgets are posted.^[2]
• Ethics information is available,^[3] along with lobbyist information.^[4]
• Audit reports are posted.^[5]
• A state agency directory is posted with contact information.^[6] State officials, elected and administrative, are also listed with contact information.^[7][8]
• State contracts are posted.^[9]
• Bid opportunities are posted.^[10]
• A summary of the California Public Records Act is posted,^[11] a list of public records posted by departments is available,^[12] and some individual departments post instructions on how to submit public records requests.^[13][14][15]
• The site was recognized by Government Computer News as one of the best public sector websites in 2011.^[16]

[edit] The bad

• No information is available on Taxpayer-funded lobbying.
• Department-specific information is available on making public records requests, but hard to find.

[edit] U.S. PIRG rating

The U.S. PIRG rated the state website a "D-" on providing online access to government spending data, with a score of 49 out of 100.^[17]

The scorecard that U.S. PIRG uses has 13 items and focuses on a separate state website that is searchable at the checkbook level. Sunshine Review, on the other hand, focuses on the availability of separate spending-related items; they do not need to be in a central database.

Item	Possible points	Notes
Checkbook-level website	30	Detailed expenditure information, including individual payments made to vendors.
Search by vendor	8	Ability to search checkbook-level expenditures by contractor or vendor name.
Search by keyword of activity	8	Ability to search checkbook-level expenditures by type of service or item purchased, category, or government fund.
Search by agency or departments	8	Ability to search checkbook-level expenditures by branch of government.
Contract or summary information	10	A copy of the contract or detailed summary information is included for the expenditures.
Historical expenditures	5	Checkbook-level expenditure data from previous fiscal years.
Grants and economic development incentives information	10	Awardee-specific grants and/or economic development incentives are included in the checkbook tool or elsewhere with specific award amounts.
Downloadable	3	Information can be downloaded for data analysis.
Tax expenditure reports	10	The state's tax expenditure report is linked on the website.
Off-budget agencies	2	Expenditures from quasi-public agencies are included on the website.
City and county budgets	2	Financial information for some local governments is accessible.
ARRA Funding	2	A link is provided to the state's website that tracks funding related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Feedback	2	Website users are capable and encouraged to give feedback about the site.

There are several similarities between the checklists. For both checklists, the searchability of information factors in to how usability is rated. Both checklists have an item relating to contracts, tax information, and the budget. The U.S. PIRG requires information for quasi public entities; Sunshine Review requires information on lobbying, which includes quasi public entities lobbying activity.

Unlike the Sunshine Review checklist with each check worth one point, different items on the U.S. PIRG checklist merit more or fewer points, depending on the item.

[edit] State Integrity Investigation

The 2012 State Integrity Investigation graded state ethics laws according to an "Integrity Index." The index was created by researching 330 "Integrity Indicators" across 14 categories of state government. The report assigned grades based on what laws are on the books, and whether or not they were effectively enforced. The report was a project of The Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio International.^[18]

California received an overall grade of B-, or 81%. It ranked 4 out of the 50 states.^[19]

Category	Grade
Public Access to Information	D-
Political Financing	B-
Executive Accountability	B-
Legislative Accountability	C
Judicial Accountability	C-
State Budget Processes	C-
State Civil Service Management	C+
Procurement	B+
Internal Auditing	A
Lobbying Disclosure	A
State Pension Fund Management	C
Ethics Enforcement Agencies	B
State Insurance Commissions	B-
Redistricting	A

[edit] Transparency legislation and news

Main article: California transparency legislation and transparency headlines

[edit] 2011

• In December 2011, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled that the California Assembly must disclose budget records of individual lawmakers, handing a victory to newspapers that filed a lawsuit accusing legislators of flouting the state's open records laws.The Los Angeles Times and McClatchy Newspapers sued the legislative body after records requests by The Times, the Pasadena Sun and the Sacramento Bee were all denied.^[20]

• SB 8, passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 4-1 vote, would require more transparency in higher education. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Leland Yee.^[21]

[edit] 2009

Approximately seven different bills were proposed in 2009 regarding transparency legislation.

• Senate Bill 106 sought to add school districts, community college districts, and county boards of education to the definition of a local agency whose officials must receive ethics training on subjects such as open records laws. The bill was introduced on March 4, 2009.^[22]
• Senate Bill 218 sought to make the records of non-profit organizations associated with state agencies and universities subject to the Open Records law. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Leland Yee, who stated that "Taxpayers and students deserve to know how their public universities are run". ^[23] The bill was amended and sent back to the Senate's Judiciary Committee on April 27, 2009.^[24]
• Senate Bill 502 proposed requiring state agencies and departments to develop a searchable web site relating to the expenditures of state funds. The bill was referred to the Senate's Governmental Organization Committee in March of 2009.^[25]
• Senate Bill 719 proposed state agencies and departments to develop and maintain a searchable web site that included information relating to expenditures of state funds including contract grants, purchase orders, subcontracts, tax refunds, rebates and credits. The bill was referred to the Senate's Appropriations Committee in April of 2009.^[26]
• Assembly Bill 400 sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon proposed requiring public disclosure of state spending by all departments. It was referred to the Committee on Appropriations in April of 2009.^[27]
• Assembly Bill 520 proposed allowing superior courts to issue protective orders limiting the number and scope of requests a person can make under the California Public Records Act if the court determines that the requester is seeking the records for an 'improper purpose' (including, but not limited to, harassing employees of state agencies).^[28]
  • The bill has received wide criticism, particularly for failing to define the term 'improper' with any specificity.^[29] The California Newspapers Publishers Association wrote a letter to Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter expressing their opposition to the bill and stating their position that "public access decisions must be made based on the law's presumption of access" and that "agencies must never be allowed to determine whether or not to comply with a request based on whether the request is for a use approved by the agency (i.e., a good use)".^[30]
• Assembly Bill 1194 proposed requiring state agencies and departments to develop and maintain a searchable web site that included information relating to expenditures of state funds. The bill was referred to the Business and Professions Committee in April of 2009.^[31]
• The Governor has vetoed Legislation designed to make the reporting of contracts more detailed and available showing actual consultant dollars per year.

[edit] Salaries

Main article: California state government salary

According to 2008 Census data, the state of California and local governments in the state employed a total of 2,256,634 people.^[32] Of those employees, 1,584,459 were full-time employees receiving a net pay of $9,043,021,107 per month and 672,175 were part-time employees paid $969,357,807 per month.^[32] More than 55% of those employees, or 1,257,074 employees, were in education or higher education.^[32]

A recent investigation revealed that 199 public employees in the Los Angeles collected more than $250,000 annually in total compensation. Most of the employees were physicians, but there were also a significant amount of emergency service personal and public officials earning high salaries.^[33]

The SEIU recently approved a contract which would reduce pay for 95,000 public employees in California by 5 percent. The deal was struck in order to secure pensions for its members. The union also agreed to increase member contributions to their pensions by 3 percent, which was less then the 4 to 5 percent Gov. Schwarzenegger had negotiated with other unions. The union's concessions are expected to save the state $383 million.^[34]

[edit] Pensions

Main article: California public pensions

California has several public pension plans. The California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is a $216 billion fund^[35] that covers state employees and retired teachers/administrators and is the largest public pension fund in the country.^[36] California public schools are covered by the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS).

A study by the Pew Center for the States revealed that while the states' plans are more than 80% funded, the state has failed to consistently make the required contribution and thus created a funding decline from a $9 billion pension surplus in 2000 to a $53 billion unfunded liability in 2007.^[37]

[edit] Role in FY2011 Budget

Gov. Schwarzenegger insisted that the new budget pare pension benefits for newly hired state workers to pre-1999 levels as part of any budget agreement.^[38] The governor was successful, as the FY2011 state budget creates a two-tier system that scales back pensions for newly hired workers.^[35] In addition, the budget includes new reporting requirements that CalPERS must justify the need to the governor, state treasurer and Legislature when it needs more money from taxpayers.^[35]

In FY2011, the state will pour $3.9 billion into CalPERS, an additional 18% increase from FY2010.^[35]

[edit] Public Records

Main article: California sunshine lawsuits

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of governmental bodies in California. Statutes 6250 - 6270 define the law.

When the law was passed, the California legislature prefaced it by saying, "...access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state".

The California Open Meeting Act (also cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act or the Ralph M. Brown Act) legislates the methods by which public meetings are conducted. Statutes 11120-11132 define the law.

To learn more about how to make a public records request in this state, please see: California FOIA procedures

[edit] Other transparency resources

Resource	Run by	Includes	Year	URL
Secretary of State	State	Lobbying and campaign finance	2011	http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/
Recovery	State	Tracks federal stimulus funds	2011	http://www.recovery.ca.gov/
Department of Finance	State	Budget info	2011	http://www.dof.ca.gov/
Reporting Transparency in Government	State	Information regarding Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700 and Travel Expense Claim Forms readily available to the public.	2011	http://www.transparency.ca.gov/default.aspx
Pacific Research Institute	California School Finance Center	Education data at district and state level.	2010	http://schoolfinancecenter.org/
Follow the Money	The National Institute on Money in Politics	Campaign contributions	2010	http://www.followthemoney.org/database/state_overview.phtml?y=2010&s=CA

[edit] Transparency advocates

See also: California transparency advocates

[edit] Organizations

• Californians Aware is a 501(c)3 "established to help journalists and others keep Californians aware of what they need to know to hold government and other powerful institutions accountable for their actions." According to the organization, its mission is to "support and defend open government, an enquiring press and a citizenry free to exchange facts and opinions on public issues." The organization's main goal is to be a "center for information, guidance and initiatives in public forum law."^[39]
  • Community Forum: The organization's community forum is a site where website visitor can communicate with others on topics regarding access to public meetings, access to public records, access to court proceedings, as well as other open government issues. Additionally, the community forum is also the location in which CalAware Watchdogs can communicate or ask questions.^[40]
  • Audits: The organization audits various state agencies and grades them based on their compliance of information requests. As of March 2010 available audits include: 2009 Sacramento Area Public Education Audit; 2007 Law Enforcement Audit; 2007 Law Enforcement Audit - Follow-Up; 2006 State Agency Audit.^[41]
  • Watchdog Training: Californians Aware offers "watchdog training," a network of individuals that act as the "eyes and ears of CalAware on the local level."^[42]
  • NOVA Awards: The NOVA Award is granted to individuals that "lead by example through their independent efforts to increase transparency and accountability in local and state government throughout California."^[43]

• First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit public interest organization dedicated to advancing free speech, more open and accountable government, and public participation in civic affairs. The Coalition acts locally, statewide and nationally. Founded in 1988 as the “California First Amendment Coalition,” the organization in 2009 shrunk its name to "First Amendment Coalition." The change, the organization said, confirmed their expanding role, and acknowledged the declining relevance, in the internet era, of state borders to many First Amendment issues.^[44]

• First Amendment Project is a nonprofit advocacy organization focused on "protecting and promoting freedom of information, expression, and petition."^[45]

• Pacific Research Institute is a non-profit, free market think tank in California. Founded in 1979, its stated mission "is to champion freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility for all individuals by advancing free-market policy solutions."^[46]

[edit] Blogs and Forums

See also: California blogs

[edit] External links

[edit] References

	v • d • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Transparency	Public Records Act | Open Meeting Act | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates |
Divisions	State | List of counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts, A - L | List of School Districts, M - Y | Evaluation of State website | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of school district websites |
State spending	State budget | State salaries | Stimulus allocations | Taxpayer-funded lobbying |
Government	California State Constitution | Executive | House of Representatives | Senate | Local officials | Public school system |
Judiciary	California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News |
Ballot Measures	2008 Ballot measures | 2008 local ballot measures | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process |