Define Dataset: State Checkbook (Finance and Contracts)

[emily878]

Define the essential substantive elements of the core State Checkbook dataset. What are the components that it must minimally include? Do we have a dataset that we could hold up as a model?

[waldoj]

I'm not sure that there's much data that can be collected for spending.

• agency
• payee
• amount
• date
• check/voucher number
• description

I don't think that one can collect less than that, but I'm also not sure that one can collect much more.

[emily878]

Ohio as a model: http://ohiotreasurer.gov/Transparency/Ohios-Online-Checkbook

[emily878]

Good categorization is very helpful - I think we should also promote creation of categories of expense. (Obviously does not need to line up across states.)

[waldoj]

Where is Ohio's data? Their website is lovely, but I can only find files like "Top 50 Largest Expenses."

[emily878]

If you click on the pie chart it brings you to "all expenses" and then you
can "download all." Haven't done it yet, still need to verify!

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Waldo Jaquith notifications@github.com
wrote:

Where is Ohio's data? Their website is lovely, but I can only find files
like "Top 50 Largest Expenses."

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#36 (comment)
.

Emily Shaw
National Policy Manager | Sunlight Foundation |
(o) 202-742-1520 x 282 | (c) 207-233-5684
@emilydshaw http://twitter.com/emilydshaw

[waldoj]

Ah-ha, that worked. How-to:

1. Select any pie chart segment.
2. Click on Expense Type and change Expense Category to All.
3. Click on View Transactions on the table at bottom.
4. Choose Export All.

This brings up a transactional URL that says:

Please wait while your download is being generated. A download button will appear below when it is ready...

That's still churning away now. :)

[waldoj]

After an hour and change, I gave up. I suspect that their system just can't handle exporting all of its data.

[waldoj]

A list of state checkbook sites is available in this US PIRG report, in Appendix D (page 62).

[waldoj]

So, for reference, this is our complete model that we're scoring against:

• agency
• payee
• amount
• date
• check/voucher number
• description
• expense category

[waldoj]

How in the world is US PIRG coming up with their grades? Illinois, for example, offers no transaction-level data (that I can find). Just aggregate data. So you can see that $100,000 was spent on food, but not in how many transactions, when, to whom the money was given, etc. US PIRG gives them an A-, citing five categories of grants, tax credits, and tax exemptions. Sure, fine, but what about actual spending of money? Like other states, Illinois has nothing on that, but US PIRG gives 'em high marks.

[emily878]

Should we check in with them?

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Waldo Jaquith notifications@github.com
wrote:

How in the world is US PIRG coming up with their grades? Illinois, for
example, offers no transaction-level data (that I can find). Just
aggregate data. So you can see that $100,000 was spent on food, but not in
how many transactions, when, to whom the money was given, etc. US PIRG
gives them an A-, citing five categories of grants, tax credits, and tax
exemptions. Sure, fine, but what about actual spending of money? Like
other states, Illinois has nothing on that, but US PIRG gives 'em high
marks.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#36 (comment)
.

Emily Shaw
National Policy Manager | Sunlight Foundation |
(o) 202-742-1520 x 282 | (c) 207-233-5684
@emilydshaw http://twitter.com/emilydshaw

[waldoj]

US PIRG explains their methodology, I saw shortly after I wrote that comment. (In Appendix A, page 43 of the PDF.) Unfortunately, they don't show their work—that is, for each state, they don't provide the scoring allocations to show how they arrived at the score that they did.

Whoa. Wait. I just spotted this:

So there are two unrelated Illinois financial transparency sites: http://ledger.illinoiscomptroller.com/ and http://www.accountability.illinois.gov/. One run by the governor, one by the comptroller.

headdesk

[emily878]

That's essentially what they have in NY too, right?

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Waldo Jaquith notifications@github.com
wrote:

US PIRG explains their methodology, I saw shortly after I wrote that
comment. (In Appendix A, page 43 of the PDF.) Unfortunately, they don't
show their work—that is, for each state, they don't provide the scoring
allocations to show how they arrived at the score that they did.

Whoa. Wait. I just spotted this:

[image: sites]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/656758/6984250/ed83ad68-d9f4-11e4-8ae6-fb901782c69f.png

So there are two unrelated Illinois financial transparency sites:
http://ledger.illinoiscomptroller.com/ and
http://www.accountability.illinois.gov/. One run by the governor, one by
the comptroller.

headdesk

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#36 (comment)
.

Emily Shaw
National Policy Manager | Sunlight Foundation |
(o) 202-742-1520 x 282 | (c) 207-233-5684
@emilydshaw http://twitter.com/emilydshaw

[waldoj]

I don't know: "New York" comes after "Illinois" alphabetically, so I haven't gotten that far yet. :)