| It's becoming harder to argue against government accountability
One
of the main concerns with, and accusations leveled against, governments
that aren't democratic (or have only recently embraced democracy) is
the lack of openness and transparency. Myanmar is an unfortunate
example of this. Even when all that the rest of the world wants
to do is help, the military leadership is only begrudgingly allowing
foreign aid into their country. Now that some aid is finally
getting into Myanmar, the government there is being accused of keeping
the best of the lot for themselves.
In this situation no one can
disagree that openness and transparency are good and necessary.
Lives are at risk. Now let's look closer to home. What if
lives weren't at risk? At what point is transparency no longer
necessary?
Angie Ross of INPUT, which provides provides market
intelligence, analysis, and consulting to the private and public
sectors, observes, "These days, ensuring transparency to taxpayers is a
top-line discussion among state legislators and is a top priority for
state governors. While some fight open government bills
tooth-and-nail, mainly stressing lack of funding, others strongly
support the far-reaching benefits of a simple tool that can be created
with little or no difficulty and, above all, inexpensively."
So,
the argument against a more transparent government is that it costs too
much of the taxpayer's money to be accountable to the taxpayer.
If that argument sounds specious to you, you are not alone.
The
Missouri Accountability Portal was launched in 2007. From the MAP
website we learn that the "MAP site is presented to the citizens of
Missouri on behalf of Governor Matt Blunt as a single point of
reference to review how their money is being spent and other pertinent
information related to the enforcement of government programs."
The
site is already a great success story for everyone who wants to see the
government become more transparent. In regards to its cost, Ross
said, "The site, created with existing staff and with no additional
appropriations for its cost, has reached 6,165,727 hits after only a
few months of operation, according to a recent press release by the
Governor's Office."
With existing staff and no additional
appropriations. If cost was ever a valid argument to not be
accountable to the taxpayers, we now have prove that this argument is
no longer valid.
That key phrase, "with existing staff and with
no additional appropriations for its cost," has always been true of the
ElectronicTendering System. The ETS does not require additional
staff to make it work. Nor does it aim to replace existing
staff. The aim of this product is to help existing staff work
better, more securely and, above all, with more transparency.
Best of all, the ETS is not just another burden on the budget.
With its implementation a procurement department can also hope to
realize savings. Ross herself observed, "Investments in
transparency tools are projected to translate into billions of dollars
in savings."
Remember this example and keep in mind that the
next time someone argues that becoming more transparent would cost too
much, they may be ill informed or money probably isn't the real issue.
|
