When you consider the facts, there is only one clear choice for the next Massachusetts State Auditor: Kamal Jain.

“There’s a world of difference between financial auditing and government auditing.” ~Alan Levine, Retired Partner, Ernst & Young

How many auditors does it take to audit our state government?  Well, the answer depends on which kind of auditor you’re talking about.  Here, Kamal Jain explains that there are many different kinds of auditors, and that it would be incorrect to confuse a financial auditor with a government auditor.

A lot of politicians use the word “transparency”.  Kamal Jain says they are abusing the word and cheapening it.  He is the only candidate for State Auditor to define transparency and propose specific plans on to bring about Total Transparency and Actual Accountability.

For many years our republic flourished with very little growth of government.  Most government was very local, very small and naturally transparent.  People knew what was going on and had a say in it.  Waste was hard to hide.

As the nation grew faster, so did government.  Like any bureaucracy, the larger government got, the more wasteful and inefficient it got.  But the more local government was, the more naturally transparent it generally was, because people could see the outcomes and effects of government with their own eyes.

In more recent years, government growth has been primarily at the state and Federal level, where it is, by definition, not local, and by nature increasingly opaque and hidden from the eyes of the people.  To address this concern, state and federal government established entire bureaucracies just to audit the government for waste and inefficiency.

The problem with this arrangement is obvious: Government cannot objectively audit itself any more than an individual or corporation could objectively audit themselves.  There is an inherent conflict of interest, as well as the bias and indifference that comes with spending other people’s money.

For generations, ever-expanding government was only tracked on paper, and then eventually on proprietary computer systems controlled by government itself.  Freedom of information requests were — and often still are — paper forms submitted in person or through the mail, which eventually yield paper results.

None of the information was easy to obtain or easy to consume.  The people had little choice but to rely upon government to audit itself and hope for the best.

No more — now we can have Democracy in America 2.0!

The late 20th and early 21st century have brought to the masses unprecedented access to information and technology.  Nearly all government operation occurs on computer systems which can produce information that is easy to obtain and easy to consume — and easy to understand.

Fundamental to democracy working correctly is civic engagement.  The people need to know what their government is doing, and be able to participate through the democratic process of voting.  According to polls commissioned by the Association of Government Accountants, government transparency is very important to the American people.

Here in Massachusetts we have a paradox: One of the most technically well-equipped states, with a complete lack of state government transparency.

So why no transparency?

Because most politicians and candidates do not embrace true transparency.  They have learned that “transparency” is a word they can throw around and win points with, but unless they are talking about true and total transparency, where the people can directly see the information with their own eyes, then it isn’t transparency.

Any politician who says that they will find government waste and show the people isn’t offering transparency, they’re offering to go behind the curtain and tell the people what’s back there.  That is not transparency.  No politician is immune to the influences of being in government; they cannot be objective.  And with the sheer size and scope of today’s state government, it is hubris to make such claims or promises.

Until recently, we had little choice.  But today we have the democratizing benefits of technology.

The Internet, powerful home computers, and smart mobile phones have given billions of people on the planet cheap and instant access to vast collections of news, information and wisdom.  We no longer have to go to libraries and search through card catalogs in hopes of gaining knowledge.  We no longer have to rely solely on a very small set of news outlets such as newspapers and television.

We no longer have to allow our government to operate secretly and without transparency.  We no longer have to trust politicians and rely on government to objectively audit itself.

We have had the technology and the ability.  We have only lacked the right government Auditor to make it happen.

Until now.

I’m Kamal Jain, and I am the ONLY candidate for State Auditor with a promise and a plan to bring Total Transparency to our state government.  I promise to return the power to oversee government to the people by making all financial information freely accessible and easy to understand.  I’ve made other pledges as well.

I will establish a Massachusetts version of the famed Grace Commission, which will enable volunteers from the private sector to actively audit government operations.  These things will empower the people to become citizen auditors.

No politician, bureaucrat or government department can objectively audit government or tell the people what is going on inside.  Only Total Transparency can. Only Total Transparency will return the power to rein-in government back to the people. If we want Democracy in America 2.0, we have to demand Total Transparency.

Only one candidate for State Auditor offers Total Transparency: Kamal Jain.

Please vote for Kamal Jain in the Republican primary on September 14th.

Thank you!

The only reason the issue made the news, however, is because four Representatives stopped House business to demand an audit of the charges by the law firm.  In this matter, these four deserve thanks for taking  a stand for transparency:

• Matthew Patrick, (D) Falmouth
• William G. Greene (D) Billerica
• Thomas M. Stanley (D) Waltham
• Lida E. Harkins (D) Needham

Their stand has forced the current Speaker, Robert A. DeLeo, to propose an outside audit and examination of the charges to the House by the law firm selected by the former Speaker.  If that audit ever happens, it will be a a victory…but one which may cost the taxpayers even more.

What is lost in this discussion, however, is that it took an internal House argument to bring this matter to the light of day.  This case represents a relative handful of transactions out of tens of millions each year — what else don’t the people know about?

The people would never have known that a disgraced politician was still costing them money.  If we had transparency in government, the charges to the House — and therefore the taxpayers — would have been available for all to see and ask about.  Access to that kind of information by the general public and the media could allow for more calls for audits of such spending.

Of course certain details need to be kept from public view to protect people’s privacy, security and ongoing investigations and such, but there is no reason the people could not see $378,000 in total charges from a vendor to the Commonwealth and see that the project code had to do with the DiMasi investigation.

The state has no reasonable argument for keeping secret its financial dealings.  Every single transaction should be visible in some reasonable level of detail to anyone who wants to see them — online, when they happen, and for free.  The people deserve total transparency in all matters of their government.

The fundamental problem underlying all others which taxpayers face is a lack of government transparency.  Here Kamal Jain goes over the disturbing parallels between the Federal Government, the State Government and the Federal Reserve — a complete lack of transparency and accountability to the people.

You see, it is the only annual report that is comprehensive enough to be compliant with the same accounting standard used by businesses.  While each fiscal year ends on June 30, this particular report is not available to the public until late December or early January following the close of that period.

Looking back at FY2008 one can plainly see that what our politicians call “the budget” was $26.8 BILLION, total CAFR spending was $50.8 BILLION — $24 BILLION more than what the annual General Appropriations Act covers.

Why the difference?  Without transparency we cannot know.  Where did the money go, and why is so much off budget?  Without accountability we cannot know.  How well-spent was the money, and who truly benefitted from it?  Without the information and tools available online to let the people do their own analysis of their government we cannot know.

What does FY2009 have for its total?  When Santa brings me my present (via the Office of the State Comptroller), that is at least something we can know.

Next year we can all look forward to lots of transparency and accountability when I get elected as our next State Auditor.

Transparently Yours,
Kamal Jain

FY2008 Spending
Budget =  $26.8 BILLION <– this is the so-called “budget”
SBFR  =  $47.7 BILLION
CAFR  =  $50.8 BILLION <– this is the real number for total spending

FY2009 Spending
Budget =  $28.2 BILLION <– this is the so-called “budget” *
SBFR  =  $49.4 BILLION
CAFR =  $??.? BILLION <– We will know in late December or early January

REFERENCES
FY2008 Budget — See total of column “FY 2008 GAA” available at:

http://www.mass.gov/bb/gaa/fy2008/app08/ga08/hdefault.htm

FY2009 Budget — See total of columns “FY2009 GAA” and “FY2009 Total Spending” * available at:

http://www.mass.gov/bb/gaa/fy2009/app_09/ga_09/hdefault.htm

* Note that “FY2009 Total Spending” is shown as $27.9 BILLION.

FY2008 SBFR — See total for 2008 on page 316 (”Ten-Year Schedule Of Expenditures And Other Financing Uses By Secretariat”) of SBFR available at:

http://www.mass.gov/Aosc/docs/reports_audits/SBFR/2008_SBFR.pdf

FY2009 SBFR — See total for 2009 on page 106 (”Ten-Year Schedule Of Expenditures And Other Financing Uses By Secretariat”) of SBFR available at:

http://www.mass.gov/Aosc/docs/reports_audits/SBFR/2009_SBFR.pdf

FY2008 CAFR — See total for 2008 on page 164 (”Ten-Year Schedule Of Expenditures And Other Financing Uses By Secretariat”) of CAFR available at:

http://www.mass.gov/Aosc/docs/reports_audits/CAFR/CAFR_2008.pdf

FY2009 CAFR — We have to wait until late December or early January.

DEFINITIONS/EXPLANATIONS
Fiscal Year — Per Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year): A fiscal year (or financial year, or sometimes budget year) is a period used for calculating annual (”yearly”) financial statements in businesses and other organizations. In many jurisdictions, regulatory laws regarding accounting and taxation require such reports once per twelve months, but do not require that the period reported on constitutes a calendar year (i.e., January through December).  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a fiscal year which begins on July 1 of each year and ends on June 30 of the following calendar year.

Budget — Expenditures and revenue plans as defined by the General Appropriations Act of each given fiscal year.

SBFR — The Statutory Basis Financial Report, typically available in late October or early November for the prior fiscal year ended June 30 (approximately 4 months after close of fiscal period).

CAFR — The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, typically available in late December or early January for the prior fiscal year ended June 30 (approximately 6 months from close of fiscal period).

Why?  Because the other major party candidates have the same things in common, none of which the people of Massachusetts need: They all lack vision and independence from party loyalties, and they are all political opportunists seeking to reach the next rung on the political ladder, and to be a guardian for their party.  These two parties have controlled the Governor’s office and the Legislature for decades, taking turns in the driver’s seat but always moving in one direction: More spending and bigger government with NO transparency or accountability.

There is a candidate for Auditor with a clearly-articulated vision for TOTAL transparency and accountability, and the independence the people of our state so desperately need to help them know all that goes on in state government: Kamal Jain.  The people need someone inside government who is on their side.  Together we can leave no stone unturned, no agency or department unexamined.

The people of Massachusetts are smart enough to know that audits of the government by the government will never expose much of the waste and corruption.  The people of Massachusetts need the tools and information to enable them all to become citizen auditors and investigators, able to identify and examine every expenditure, every contract bid and award process, every decision made — things done in near secrecy today.  The people need transparency and accountability.

When there is a candidate who stands for transparency and accountability, the Auditor’s race will matter.

The Auditor’s race matters; there is a transparency and accountability candidate: Kamal Jain.

It would be fair to say that no one person today truly understands all government operations and spending, nor could they identify most waste on their own.  It would be impossible for any one person to know that, or even for a room full of accountants.  Transparency will provide the information and tools which will empower the people — all of the people — to become investigators of waste, fraud and corruption.  Areas of spending that are typically overlooked by most people will come to someone’s attention because millions of taxpayers will have access to ALL the information.

Transparency is a prerequisite for good government.  Transparency makes accountability and efficiency possible.  We already have everything we need to have TOTAL government transparency today, except for a State Auditor willing to not just make it a priority, but to make it THE priority.  For TOTAL transparency and accountability, there is only ONE choice for Massachusetts State Auditor: Kamal Jain.

Central to transparency will be a citizen portal to government spending.  Because transparency is so important, we are not waiting to begin to make government financial accessible to the people.  Funds are being raised to purchase “public” information from the state government, and to engage attorneys to assist in acquiring the data as necessary.  Read the story of Kamal Jain’s attempts to get this information to date.

The citizen portal will be operated as a separate site at MassTransparency.com, and we will work closely with individuals and organizations who are also working on various facets of transparency to make it a key resource for anyone living in Massachusetts.