When it comes to financial transparency in government, not everyone sees eye to eye, including Chief Financial Officers. Every year since 1996, the Association of Government Accountants has surveyed government CFOs on pressing issues, and the 2009 survey focused primarily on transparency and the financial statement process. The questions produced a variety of opinions on the prospect of increased financial transparency in government, ranging from unquestioning support for the idea to denial of its feasibility altogether.

The transparency issue, like almost any political issue, is one of cost. A totally transparent government is a lofty ideal, but is it worth the huge IT price tag, especially right now? Moreover, will the information actually be used if and when it is dug up?

The detractors in the survey pointed to the sad fact that existing efforts toward transparency, like data.gov, are seldom used compared with the effort it takes to make them work. Said one executive, “People are more interested in knowing that the Web-based databases are there, rather than actually using them.” Continuing that sentiment, another exec said, “We should ask, if you get this information, ‘What are you going to do with it?’ We’re not on a nice-to-know business. We shouldn’t want to make stuff transparent just to make it transparent.” It seems many are worried that if the effort is made, regardless of the intention, it may be a waste of funding because it is not used properly.

Pessimism did not prevail entirely, however. The AGA stated that many respondents saw transparency as “the new cost of doing business”—they have already resigned to the necessity of increased transparency, either as dictated by congress or by public opinion.

As the survey is theirs, the AGA authors have the last word. Having synthesized all the opinions, negative and positive, they found a strong need for a proactive stance: “active transparency, rather than passive.”  That means educating the public on data analysis to avoid issues of misinterpretation, and to give people “what they really need, rather than simply answering their questions.” In other words, make the data available, but also show people how to use it, so that the effort is not wasted. The survey also serves as a rallying cry for all CFOs to be leaders of all those around them, educating their peers and making intelligent decisions about transparency efforts by determining whether they are worth it on a case-by-case basis.

Still, the success of transparency depends heavily on watchdog organizations, which exist separate from the government institutions that the interviewees are part of. These organizations take the data and organize it for citizens’ consumption. Realizing this, usaspending.gov, the mandated transparency information center of the government, has its info available in an API, for anyone with the know-how to make graphics or maps with.

API access is one example of the long term vision promoted by the authors of the survey—and by the president—which is summed up in one mega-multisyllabic sentence: “Transparency leads to collaboration with internal and external stakeholders, which results in more collaboration, which facilitates participatory government, which demands even more transparency.” It’s a constant cycle in which participation, transparency, and collaboration build on one another, making government constantly more accountable, less nepotistic, and more transparent. “A righteous cycle, to say the least” say the authors.

It is heartening that, despite the opinions of some, and despite the economic climate, transparency efforts are at least moving forward—it’s at least being talked about. Plus the states of New York and California already have sites dedicated solely to transparency that launched within the last two years. The money spent does not have to be seen as wasteful, or as a price for us common folk to have a fuzzy reassured feeling about our government.

More public data means more eyeballs on the numbers, and more eyes means a better chance of catching waste or mistakes. The investment will pay off—if we wait for better weather to make the effort, transparency might end up going the way of health care reform, and nobody wants that. 

The survey is available here

Also Interesting:

[+] Obama not living up to transparency promises

[+] Private company has a better grip on gov transparency than feds

[+] Nation's CIO Kundra expects Data.gov to spur transparency

[+] Transparency effort detailed in GSA newsletter

[+] Recovery.gov aims to be beacon for stimulus transparency