Jackson Free Press

Right now, many governments—cities, counties, states and federal—are working through budget numbers for the next fiscal year.

The City of Jackson recently completed a pretty grueling budget planning process, while the state will soon start a round of budget hearings in anticipation of the upcoming legislative session, which coincides with a statewide election cycle.

In just about every one of these discussions, there is handwringing about what taxpayers cannot afford. As evidence of that, just consider the yearly political fight over the Mississippi Adequate Education Program formula (see Anna Wolfe, page 12) or Jackson's recent budget negotiations.

Officials lauded the staff of the city's administration department, which manages Jackson's finances, including preparing the mayor's budget recommendation, overseeing revenue collection and doling out payroll to city workers, for burning the midnight oil. The people in this department are no doubt hard-working, dedicated civil servants. But, as some city council members also pointed out, the city's outdated technology slows down many of the department's processes, often requiring city employees to work long hours.

Being proactive and fixing the problem would cost $2 million, but the city ostensibly lacks the cash to make the investment this year. There had been some talk of an overhaul in the city clerk's office, which acts as the clearinghouse for most city documents, including campaign-finance records and contracts, but that department's budget remained flat.

The State of Mississippi has some potentially great resources, such as the Transparency Mississippi website where citizens can see what the state is spending and taking in, but the tool is clunky, buggy and often experiences down time.

State campaign-finance reports are available on the secretary of state's website, but the site's functionality leaves much to be desired. And we have repeatedly decried the woeful lack of oversight of municipal elections, which no one seems to want to claim as their responsibility (and, we suspect, many use to political advantage).

In one sense, greater transparency is necessary for good, democratic governance. But it's also good for business. Greater transparency and access to public information may improve the economy.

Imagine, for example, if there existed user-friendly databases for contracts on the municipal, county and state levels. Prospective businesses would be able to search those documents, see when they're about to expire and try to outbid their competitors for certain jobs. Not only would taxpayers see savings, but companies would have to get more creative in order to be competitive.

As Dominic DeLeo writes on page 19, the technology exists to make this possible—often simply by choosing "print as PDF" in a print function—but it's going to take some upfront investment of resources, along with commitment from citizens and government leaders to oversee implementation, execution and follow-up of these systems. In the long run, however, it would be a win-win scenario for all, and making government more transparent to the people who pay for it.