The newsletter from Monday also talked about the balance between different policy goals that all governments must strike. When it came to the balance between the public’s right to know what their government is doing and concerns about safety and efficiency, many legislators and members of the public thought the initial proposed changes to Arkansas’s FOIA law didn’t strike the right balance. As our policy analyst Joyce Ajayi explained in , as well as blog posts on Tuesday and Wednesday (co-authored with our policy analyst Joseph Johns), the initial bills didn’t just address the Governor’s personal safety, but also would have severely reduced state government transparency in other ways. A bill was ultimately passed (), but it was significantly slimmed down to only directly address issues related to safety and security.

The bill to reduce income taxes that I discussed last week in a blog post had a much smoother path to acceptance by the legislature (the bill is ). Starting in 2024, over 1 million Arkansans will now pay lower income tax rates (down from 4.7 to 4.4 percent for the top rate), and most Arkansans will also receive a $150 credit on their 2023 taxes. These changes continue the process of making Arkansas competitive with neighboring states, but, just as important, it will more closely restore the balance between taxes and state government spending.

And here’s a preview of something else coming up soon on taxes from ACRE: within the next month we will be releasing an updated book on tax reform in Arkansas, once again co-published with the Tax Foundation. This book will assess all of the tax changes in Arkansas since 2015, including this special session, and offer concrete plans of how to further reduce taxes in Arkansas. We’re excited for that book to be published, and we hope you are too.

On Friday, September 8, 2023, Governor Sarah Sanders announced that a would begin at the Arkansas Capitol on Monday, September 11. In her announcement of the special session, the Governor hinted at potential amendments to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (AFOIA). She specifically mentioned a desire to protect “internal deliberations within the executive branch” from public scrutiny, citing concerns for both her personal safety and that of her family. These concerns stemmed from that arose during her gubernatorial campaign and afterwards.

Following the Governor’s announcement, and were filed in the Arkansas Legislature. Both bills had several objectives, including the limitation of public access to records related to the security of the executive branch; this encompasses communications, processes, and travel arrangements, retroactively to January 2022.Ěý

The bills also sought to restrict access to any documents, communications, or other forms of deliberative processes of Arkansas state agencies, boards, or commissions, including records associated with contract bids and discussions, attorney-client privilege, and legal strategy, especially during periods when the state is facing legal action.

From a cursory read of both bills, it was clear that there was substantial reliance on , a carve-out to the Federal-level FOIA that allows the federal government to withhold documents and records related to internal deliberations that occur before any final administrative decision is made.Ěý

It is essential for Arkansas residents to understand that Exemption 5 in the Federal FOIA has been cited as the reason for denying the release of federal interagency deliberative documents on more than between FY 2008 and FY 2022. It is this same exemption that Governor Sanders proposed to narrow the scope of AFOIA.Ěý

At the start of the session on Monday, September 11, there was growing concern that those two bills were undermining the AFOIA. As of today, Tuesday, September 12, two new bills, and , have been introduced.Ěý

A quick review of these two new bills shows that the “deliberative exemption privilege,” has been removed, which is a positive development. However, some provisions of the two new bills, like the one involving “Records reflecting communications between the Governor or his or her staff and the secretary of a cabinet-level department,” will still be exempt.Ěý

Moreover, Section 4, Paragraph (30), requires a credible threat of litigation for attorney-client exemption, while Section 4, Paragraph (31), states that all “502(b)” material is exempt even without a threat of litigation.Ěý

Invariably, these new bills may still pose challenges for the public in accessing certain information.

Without doubt and without reservation, Arkansans should be able to protect themselves and their families from physical harm and deprivation. However, the language proposed within the amendment to the AFOIA law would create unintended negative consequences. Some of these could include shielding the conduct of corrupt or inefficient government actors from public view and hiding embarrassing or otherwise unsightly internal deliberations about policy priorities. It is important to remember that any proposed legislation will become permanent and needs to be carefully considered and vetted to assuage any concerns about unintended consequences moving forward.

Ěý

What should residents know about the current Arkansas Freedom of Information Act?

The current AFOIA has been praised by many, including Eliza Gaines, publisher of WEHCO Media Inc., the parent company of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. She said that AFOIA “” Likewise, Assistant Senate President Pro Tempore, Clarke Tucker [D-Little Rock], praised Arkansas’s FOIA as “.” Also, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin echoed this sentiment on the Arkansas , where it’s noted that the AFOIA is considered one of the most comprehensive and robust frameworks for open-records and open-meetings laws in the United States.

What are the key elements that contribute to the praise of the AFOIA?

1. Presumption of Open Records: This means that unless specific exemptions apply, all government records are considered open to the public, thereby promoting transparency.

Ěý

1. Presumption of Open Meetings: This also means that unless specific exemptions apply, AFOIA provides for transparency in government proceedings by requiring that meetings conducted by government bodies touching on public business are open to the public, allowing citizens to observe and participate in the democratic process.

Ěý

These aspects of the current AFOIA are its notable strengths. Hence, consistent court rulings in Arkansas have reinforced the public’s right to access government records and public meetings, contributing to a culture of transparency.

Ěý

How is Arkansas performing in terms of transparency at both the state and local levels?

Despite the past praise from members of the Arkansas press and the state legislature, there is still much work to be done to achieve government transparency in practice.

In the Sunshine Review’sĚý 2013 Transparency Report Card titled “,” Kristin McMurray wrote that a review was conducted to evaluate the online transparency of various levels of government across the United States. The findings showed that Arkansas received an overall grade of C- in online transparency, with the state government earning the best score of any level of government (B), while its cities, school districts, and county governments received grades of C, C-, and F, respectively. Notably, Arkansas’s counties were ranked as the least transparent among all the counties in the country at the time.Ěý

Moving forward to 2015, the Center for Public Integrity produced the , which ranked Arkansas as the 32nd-most transparent state in the nation. This report utilized a mixed-method cross-disciplinary approach to measure the extent to which each state fulfilled its commitment to providing transparent and accountable governance to its residents. States were evaluated across various categories of transparency and accountability, including the strength of their public records laws such as FOIA. In this regard, Arkansas in State Integrity Investigation, with one of the contributing factors being our open records law. In the report, the authors noted that while Arkansas did offer robust overall protections for disclosing records, it also had various exceptions and gaps that obstructed the release of certain records.

The report highlighted that some states may have robust general protections for record release but simultaneously, countless exemptions and loopholes that impede such record releases, thereby impacting their overall ranking.

Although there haven’t been any updated editions of these reports since 2013 and 2015, they continue to provide a valuable foundation for evaluating Arkansas’s present transparency performance.

Ěý It’s also crucial to acknowledge that substantial improvements have been made since 2015. Regarding state-level transparency, AFOIA laws have been periodically updated and revised to address evolving challenges. For instance, during the past legislative session, the Arkansas General Assembly enacted . It mandates that public records custodians must respond to FOIA requests in time if no responsive records exist or if exemptions apply, and they must identify the relevant exemptions. Additionally, the Act allows that responses could be delivered via email.

Also, Arkansas maintains a designed to offer easy access to government spending data, contracts, and other essential information, which should improve public access to government activities. While the state’s transparency website has not seen extensive use, it still reflects a commitment to keeping the Sunshine Laws relevant.Ěý

In the “,” authors Rachel J. Cross, Michelle Surka, and Scott Welder categorized state transparency websites. Arkansas was placed in the second tier, known as “Advancing states.” It earned this ranking because its transparency website provides easy access to state spending, which can be downloaded and searched by recipient, keyword, and agency. The “advancing states” ranking is attributed to states that have less spending data available to the public than “leading states,” which hold the first place ranking in the Report.Ěý

When compared to its neighboring states, Arkansas’s transparency website outperformed those of Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. Each of those neighboring states received either a D or a D- for their promotion of web-based fiscal transparency. Among the neighboring states, only Louisiana received a higher grade (A-) for its fiscal transparency website, surpassing Arkansas’s B- grade.

At the local government level, the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) conducts research to assess local government web transparency and publishes the Access Arkansas: County and City Web Transparency Report. This report focuses on Arkansas’s 75 counties and 112 first-class cities (cities that at the last federal census have a population exceeding 2,500 people), ranking them based on fiscal, administrative, and political web transparency.

Key findings from the Report related to AFOIA at the local government level reveal that the situation is bleak. Only a few counties (10 out of 75) and first-class cities (23 out of 112) publish online information on how residents can make FOIA requests. Similarly, a significant number of counties (35 out of 75) and first-class cities (35 out of 112) lack online accessibility for procurement information, such as government contract bids and winners.Ěý

On political transparency, while officials’ names (97%), office phone numbers (97%), and email addresses (91%) are commonly available, there’s a glaring absence (0%) of financial disclosure and conflict of interest statements available online from counties.

Also, regarding information on meetings like quorum courts which is vital for public participation and scrutiny, not so many counties (only 33 out of 75) and first-class cities (just 51 out of 112) adequately publish such information. Regarding quorum court records, only 44 percent publish times and locations of public meetings, while only 12 percent of Arkansas counties publish archived videos. While we at ACRE do not know the intent of this discrepancy, it is reasonable to say that once a meeting of the Quorum Court adjourns, the conversation and decisions in that court will be lost to history in the absence of such items being made public.Ěý

At the state transparency level, ACRE has conducted limited research on AFOIA. This is because AFOIA laws have been periodically updated and revised to address evolving challenges. As a result, ACRE’s focus over the years has been on researching the expansion of AFOIA to include web transparency at the state level. However, Governor Sanders’ proposed amendments would significantly roll back the progress made in the area of AFOIA concerning state government records. This move could set a precedent for local governments to follow, undermining ongoing local transparency efforts.

What would be the impact of adopting the Governor’s proposed amendments to AFOIA? We will address that in more detail in Part 2 of this blog post, coming soon.

Ěý

Dr.Joyce Ajayi and Mr. Joseph Johns are policy analysts at the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) at the University of Central Arkansas in Conway. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Central Arkansas.

The Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) has released its 2023 County and City Web Transparency Report, Access Arkansas. The report assesses the information that county and city governments publish online, as well as how accessible that information is. Localities are then ranked according to this analysis. Previous reports focused on Arkansas counties, but this year’s report includes first-class cities (those with populations over 2,500) for the first time.

Research shows that transparency increases accountability, instills fiscal discipline, improves economic performance, promotes trust between government and citizens, and reduces corruption. Overall, the current index shows that, on average, Arkansas counties publish about 37 percent of the important information included in ACRE’s index compared to about 15 percent in 2018. Only 20 out of 112 first class cities publish online at least 50 percent of public information included in the fiscal component of the transparency index.

“We’ve seen counties across Arkansas improve their scores since we began collecting data on Web transparency, and this year we are delighted to recognize the top-ranking cities and counties as well as the county that has most greatly improved their score,” said ACRE Director and BTĚěĚĂAssociate Professor of Economics Jeremy Horpedahl.

The top-ranking cities are Conway, Fayetteville, and Springdale. Top ranking counties include Benton, Craighead, and Washington. Sevier County has shown the most improvement in Web transparency among all 75 Arkansas Counties since 2020. These localities express the importance of web transparency and recognize the value of ACRE’s report.

“We are constantly looking at ways to make our website better for our residents thanks to the ACRE transparency project.Ěý It is important that our residents know how funds are being used and that they have easy access to that information,” said Benton County Judge Barry Moehring. “We are encouraged to see the improvements other counties are making and look to them to see how we can also improve.”

“We’re proud to be recognized for our commitment to transparency and accessibility. Transparency means more than a catchy buzzword. To further build trust and accountability with the people of Conway we know we must continue to develop and maintain user-friendly transparency tools,” said Mayor Bart Castleberry. “I’m proud of our departments, our boards, our commissions, and the Conway City Council for working together to get the job done.”

“ACRE’s transparency project has been a game changer!” said Craighead County Administrator Lisa Lawrence. “The assessment of our page has caused us to evaluate our website and review the suggestions that are given by ACRE and try to implement them into our site.Ěý We look forward to the transparency report and try to improve in our ranking each time.Ěý We also review the top ranked sites and learn from their rankings and recommendations.”

“The City of Fayetteville is committed to transparency,” said the City’s Communications Director Lisa Thurber. “Every department within the City works diligently to publish information that will help keep residents informed about how their tax dollars are at work across the community. We are delighted and honored to have these efforts recognized by the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics web transparency report.”

“Our business in county government is ultimately about the citizens that we serve, and to be able to serve our citizens we have to continue to move forward with the digital world,” said Sevier County Clerk Renea Bailey. “It’s an honor to be recognized for the work being done in Sevier County.”

“In an age where the public can be easily misinformed by so many unreliable sources, it is imperative that we, as a City, have the ability to communicate directly to our residents, ensuring they have a consistent, reliable, and transparent resource for any information they need,” said Springdale Mayor Doug Sprouse.

“As leaders of local governments, one of our top priorities is making sure we are conducting our constituents’ business in the most transparent means possible, ” said Washington County Judge Patrick Deakins. “ACRE’s transparency project has been a great resource for us to assess where we stand amongst our peers. The project spurs healthy competition while at the same time accommodating information sharing on best practices. This allows us a process for continuous improvement.”

ACRE’s transparency index is calculated by assessing the information that county and city governments publish on their websites and the Arkansas.gov andĚý platforms. It identifies the counties and cities that are best and worst in web transparency overall and quantifies their strengths in three overarching kinds of transparency: fiscal, administrative, and political.

Of the three types of transparency ACRE evaluated, Arkansas counties improved the most in fiscal transparency. They went from publishing seven percent of fiscal information in 2018 to 53 percent in 2022. “We attribute this improvement to Act 564, which became law during the 2019 Arkansas Legislative session,” said Dr. Joyce Ajayi, ACRE policy analyst and co-author of the report. “Act 564 mandates counties to publish their fiscal information online. Before that time, just a handful of counties were doing that, but now all countiesĚýpublish their budgets online through a website maintained by the Arkansas Association of Counties.”

“Access Arkansas is valuable for Arkansas residents because it lets them know the level of government transparency in their local governments and the improvements their government officials are making and need to make,” explained Horpedahl. “It also provides researchers and policymakers with the necessary data to analyze the relationship between transparency and economic and socioeconomic factors in Arkansas.”

The Arkansas General Assembly has informally adjourned, meaning that the time to pass new bills is over. They will reconvene in May to formally wrap up the session, but the major action is now concluded.

Prior to the session, ACRE put together a Top 10 List of policy ideas based on our research. And throughout the session, ACRE researchers were watching relevant bills and in Little Rock whenever our research could help inform the debate. So how did our Top 10 List turn out?

Occupational Licensing

ACRE Policy Analyst Zachary Burt

Major improvements were achieved in terms of interstate cooperation and lowering barriers for professionals who wish to move to Arkansas, through . This act provides for automatic license recognition for any out-of-state license holder who moves to Arkansas, allowing them to get to work after moving here much more quickly. License holders will be granted Arkansas licenses upon moving to the state as long as they have held the license in their previous state for one year and are in good standing. The bill was weakened to some extent from its original form, changing from saying licensing boards “may” administer an Arkansas-specific exam to an out-of-state , but the final bill says that they “shall” administer the exam. This change takes away flexibility from the licensing boards and slows down what would have been a more efficient recognition process, but the reform is still good and significant overall.

Three bills this session joined Arkansas to existing licensing compacts. These compacts are a related, but distinct, concept to universal licensing recognition. joined Arkansas to the Occupational Therapy Licensing Compact, joined the state to the Counseling Compact, and joined us to the Audiology and Speech Language Pathology Interstate Compact. These three acts are excellent steps towards getting more qualified healthcare and mental healthcare professionals to move to Arkansas.

In addition to these good steps forward, Arkansas also created or expanded at multiple occupational licenses, such as a new license for behavioral analysts (note: Governor Sanders recently ) and an expansion of the existing auctioneer license. These licenses will only add to the burden of licenses in Arkansas, and is especially worrying given that according to Arkansas already has the .

Taxes and Spending

ACRE Policy Analyst Joseph Johns

Changes to tax and spending policy can take both large and small forms. This session saw a number of small reforms pass with regard to state income taxes, but there were also some major reforms of local sales taxes.

ACRE’s big idea for tax and spending reform on our Top 10 list was a “tax and expenditure limit,” a policy that about half of US states, including all of Arkansas’s neighbors, already have. While a big change like this can take a long time to build public support – as it should for a major change – there was an important first step. Rep. Wayne Long proposed a constitutional amendment that would establish a TEL in Arkansas, which he called the Arkansas Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The legislature did not refer that amendment to the voters this year, but we are optimistic that it will start future conversations about this kind of tax and spending reform.

On state income taxes, the legislature passed another slight reduction in both personal and corporate income tax rates, lowering both by two-tenths of a percentage point (the top personal rate is now 4.7 percent). While this was a small reform, it is still important, and continues along the path that the legislature has taken in almost every session since 2015. Cumulatively, these small tax cuts have created large reductions in income taxes for middle class families of almost a thousand dollars per year.

One other major set of tax reforms was passed that will limit local sales tax increases. Through the passage of two bills this year, Arkansas both required local A&P taxes to be approved by the public (before this, no public vote was required) and set strict limits on when all local tax elections can be held. Cities, counties, and school districts will now have just two fixed dates each year (in May and November) to hold local tax elections. This reform was not on our Top 10 list, but it is one that ACRE has been working on for years. Additionally, another good corporate tax reform was enacted – repealing the throwback rule – which Arkansas has suggested for years beginning with our 2016 book on tax reform.

Government Transparency

While none of ACRE’s proposed Top 10 ideas for government transparency were passed, this doesn’t mean that we weren’t busy in this area. To the contrary, there were several bills proposed during the session which would have reduced local government transparency, and ACRE followed all of these bills, testified before the legislature multiple times, and explaining why these bills would reduce transparency.

ACRE Policy Analyst Dr. Joyce Ajayi

Even though no bills were passed from our Top 10 list, towards the end of the session, two bills were filed that would have greatly expanded theof public meetings and the for cities in Arkansas. Given how late the bills were filed, they didn’t end up becoming law, but we look forward to similar bills being filed in future sessions that will establish the same transparency in Arkansas cities that ACRE helped in 2019.

The challenges with government transparency in Arkansas were demonstrated in many ways, including several attempts to limit Arkansas’s FOIA law, which is generally regarded as among the best in the nation. ACRE’s advice to policymakers doesn’t always involve recommending new legislation, but often takes the form of preventing bad changes from happening.

This week is , and I couldn’t be more excited! For those unfamiliar with it, Sunshine Week is an annual event across the country that celebrates government transparency and encourages the public to participate in the democratic process.

One of the things I am most excited about for Sunshine Week this year is three new bills in Arkansas that touch on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have recently been introduced to the Arkansas Legislature. Three of those bills present an opportunity to enhance the legislation surrounding FOIA. The first is , requiring records custodians to respond in writing within three days of the FOIA request in certain circumstances, like when no records that are responsive to the request exist. The second bill is Senate Bill, requiring regular training of local governments like cities, counties, and school boards on public records and open meetings requirements of the FOIA. The third and most exciting is , defining what constitutes a meeting of a public body or publicly-funded entity. These three bills were all this week with extensive testimony, though only SB 381 has passed so far (the other two were not voted on).

However, a fourth recent bill,Ěý, would define a meeting as a public meeting only when a quorum of the public body is present, going the opposite direction of SB 382. Depending on how it is interpreted, House Bill 1610 may be bad for transparency. Though the law more clearly defines a public meeting, it may allow for secrecy. For example, given a scenario where school board members met secretly without a quorum, they may propose to have it be off the record since it is not within the ambit of that definition of a public meeting because there was no quorum.

Over the past few months, some remarkable occurrences came to light, suggesting that our local governments needed more clarity on laws regarding public meetings. OnĚý, theĚý board disregarded the public meetings law by holding a secret meeting. Also, in November 2022,Ěýrefused a resident attendance at a meeting that had been previously published as a public meeting in the media. Conway School District further deleted emails about school business within three days. In another event, the ourt on December 30 2022, ruled that Washington County’s Job Evaluation/Salary Administration Program Committee is a public body and its meetings should be made public. All of those occurrences raised concerns about an open and accountable government, thus providing lawmakers a chance to clarify the desired features of transparency in public meetings.

The current law on Arkansas’ open public meeting law describes a public meeting as “all meetings, formal or informal, special or regular, of the governing bodies of all municipalities, counties, townships, and school districts and all boards, bureaus, commissions, or organizations of the State of Arkansas, except grand juries, supported wholly or in part by public funds or expending public funds.” (AR Code § 25-19-106). That law created some ambiguity in its interpretation for most public entities on what really constitutes a public meeting, but it is interesting to see the Legislature making attempts to provide a proper definition because public meetings are an essential aspect of democratic governance. Public meetings provide an opportunity for residents to stay informed, have their voices heard, and engage with their government in a meaningful way. By promoting transparency, accountability, and community engagement, public meetings help ensure that government decisions are made with the people’s best interests in mind.

If you are someone who values transparency and accountability and are always looking for ways to stay informed about what is happening in your local, state, and federal government, Sunshine Week provides the perfect opportunity to do just that. ACRE offers a number of resources on government transparency on our website, and our 2023 county and city web transparency report will be available this Spring. Happy Sunshine week!

The Arkansas General Assembly has now completed 7 weeks of its 2023 Regular Session. While there is still a lot more work to be done this year, we’ve already seen some major developments, and at ACRE we are closely watching several pieces of legislation where our research can help inform the debate and legislative process. I wanted to provide a summary of what has happened so far, and what to look forward to in the remainder of the session.

The biggest news last week was the release of the full details the LEARNS Act (), which is Governor Sanders’ major initiative to reform K-12 education in Arkansas. Not only is this bill important in its own right, but it will also be important for allowing other parts of the legislative agenda to move forward. Given the potential fiscal costs of the education reform, other spending and taxation changes were partially on hold until the details became clear. I recently spoke with about how all of the proposed spending and tax changes in Arkansas might fit together this year.

The education reform bill has already made it through the Arkansas Senate and is expected to come up in the House next week. ACRE has published a variety of research on K-12 education and school choice in the past. In particular, several of our research papers address an important question in the current debate: does school choice hurt traditional public schools? Dr. Thomas Snyder summarizes his research and the research of other economists in a recent ACRE blogpost. In brief, most of the research suggests that school choice programs do not hurt student performance in traditional public schools.

Here are a few of the other pieces of legislation ACRE has been following.

Joseph Johns testifies on HB 1027

While there has not been a major tax reform bill filed yet for Arkansas income taxes, there have been several bills related to the issue of local taxes. ACRE Policy Analyst Joseph Johns summarized the relevant local tax issues in another ACRE blogpost. The first bill Mr. Johns discussed would ban local governments in Arkansas from enacting income taxes, and it has already been enacted into law as . Another bill would require A&P taxes to be put before voters before they can be enacted or increased. These are local sales taxes —Ěý primarily enacted by cities — on hotels, restaurants, and other similar businesses, but do not require a vote of the citizens. has already passed through the Arkansas House, and Mr. Johns testified before the House committee presenting ACRE’s research relevant to the bill.

Dr. Joyce Ajayi testifies on HB 1318

Several bills have also been proposed which would improve local government transparency in Arkansas, and our Policy Analyst Dr. Joyce Ajayi has testified on several of them. would improve the bidding process for city governments in Arkansas, making the process more transparent, and it has passed the Arkansas Senate. Another transparency bill is even more closely aligned with ACRE’s research. HB 1399 would give city governments the option to publish budgets online, rather than in newspapers, which has the potential to save cities money, and would also improve their scores in ACRE’s web transparency index. ACRE’s index already planned to include cities in our new 2023 report, and this bill would give them an immediate improvement in their scores for fiscal transparency. Dr. Ajayi testified before the House committee on this bill as well, but it is currently on hold awaiting a fiscal impact statement.

We’ve also seen a major bill proposed related to ACRE’s research on occupational licensing. Policy Analyst Zach Burt explained in a blog post how SB 90 would improve opportunities for work in Arkansas by establishing “universal licensing recognition.” A law like this would mean that workers could move to Arkansas and not need to go through a lot of red tape to start working if they were already licensed in another state. The bill has not been presented in committee yet, but ACRE is prepared to share our research with the legislature when it is presented, potentially in the very near future.

Thank you for continuing to follow ACRE’s research and our educational outreach to the legislature. Be sure to continue checking our blog and subscribe to our newsletter (go to the bottom of this page:Ěý/acre/) as we will continue to provide weekly updates throughout the session.

ĚýThe Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) has been tracking county government web transparency since 2018 with our publication Access Arkansas: County Web Transparency. Since we first published our report, Arkansas counties have become much more transparent, both through their own individual choices to publish more information online and through actions of the legislature requiring counties to publish certain information. A bill proposed in the current session, , would further expand web transparency by requiring counties and cities to publish even more information online rather than in newspapers, which is the only current requirement.

This bill may have some deficiencies in that it strikes out the option of local newspaper publishing in its entirety in certain portions of the bill related specifically to county elections and tax delinquency lists. Those sections of the bill could be improved by retaining the option of publishing in a newspaper, in addition to allowing online publishing of such notices on a website as an alternative.

However, two portions of the bill that speak specifically to ACRE’s work with local governments are the provisions in sections 18 and 20 of the bill concerning publishing or posting requirements of municipality bylaws, ordinances, and annual financial statements. The proposed sections of the bill allow municipalities to publish this information in a newspaper or on a website.

Currently, only 34 of Arkansas’s 112 first-class cities publish their budgets online. If the proposed bill is passed, this change would improve the average score for a city in our forthcoming index by 0.8 points on a 0 to1 scale. That improvement would be similar to the changes that counties experienced in their index scores, as discussed further below in this blog.

In today’s digital age, it is easier than ever for local governments to make information available online, costing governments fewer resources. For example, open-source content management systems like WordPress can be used to create a professional-looking website without the need for expensive web development services. Using websites to provide information to the public enhances government transparency. Web transparency also plays a crucial role in promoting equal, accessible, and sustained public access to government information.

Best practice research reveals that open-data initiatives, such as publishing government information and notices on government websites and other web platforms, are crucial for increasing transparency in government. Several best-practice research publications support this position on web transparency. Amedee, George, et al. echo this opinion in their book Advancing Excellence and Public Trust in Government, published by Lexington Books in 2011.

Also, in the “), an annual report that summarizes the conversations between democracy leaders who are working to further transparency published, authors Rachel J. Cross, Michelle Surka, and Scott Welder emphasized the importance of web transparency and publishing government information like that which is the subject of this bill on government websites. The authors of “Following the Money” explain, among other things, that web transparency leads to more efficient government administration and cost savings for the government. The authors give examples from state websites in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas that transformed their transparency websites into actual cost savings, a benefit for taxpayers.

The authors of “Following the Money” also note that people are getting more engaged with information online these days. For example, they reported that in 2017 alone, at least 1.5 million users viewed over 8.7 million pages on state transparency websites.

Over the years, we at ACRE have conducted original academic research on local government transparency for the state, and the data shows that local governments have a long way to go in improving transparency. Some of the history of ACRE’S work on government transparency dates back to 2013 when an assessment of online transparency by Kristin McMurray, “ published by the Sunshine Review, revealed that Arkansas’s local governments were not doing so well at transparency. For example, Arkansas counties were the worst in the nation at web transparency earning an F grade. No other state’s counties earned such a low grade; cities earned a C grade, while the school districts earned a C-. Against that backdrop, ACRE kick-started a collaborative research effort with local governments to improve their web transparency. That effort led to the publication of the Access Arkansas: Web Transparency Report. ACRE has released three editions of the report. This year’s edition is the 4th and is set to be released in March of 2023. This edition of the report will show that progress has been made inĚýcounty-level transparency in Arkansas since 2018 when we published the first edition of the Transparency Report. However, there is still much room for improvement, as Table 1 shows.

From Table 1, you will observe that Arkansas counties, overall, performed better in fiscal transparency in 2022 than in the other two types of transparency. A contributing factor to this was that in 2019, the Arkansas legislature passed Act 564, requiring that beginning in January 2020, counties must publish their financial information on web platforms. The website Ěýwas established to assist counties with complying with the law, even if they do not have their own website. As a result, fiscal transparency to full compliance on this aspect of transparency, as shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Online Publication of County Budgets Before Act 564 in 2019 and after Act 564 in 2022

Ěý

Since Act 564 was passed into law, fiscal transparency has significantly improved in Arkansas. Table 2 (below) provides both the number and percentages of counties that publish each of the index’s fiscal subcomponents in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2022.Ěý The table demonstrates both the improvement that Arkansas counties have made as a whole and where the deficiencies still exist in publishing certain types of financial information.

ĚýTable 2

Number and Percentages of Arkansas Counties Publishing Each Subcomponent of Fiscal Transparency Online

Two things especially stand out in Table 2:

• In 2022, the number of counties publishing budgets and audits online was 75, meaning all counties now publish the information online via Ěýas a result of Act 564 (Although in the final calculations of each county’s final fiscal score, we award a full point to those counties that either publish the information directly on their website or direct users to the information via a link to the website).
• Most counties now publish each subcomponent of fiscal transparency online. The number of counties publishing each subcomponent of fiscal transparency online has increased in every category except for county fees.

Cities, unfortunately, do not have a similar mandate to Act 564. Figure 2 is the bar chart showing the current data for fiscal transparency of . The blue bars signify the number of cities that currently publish their budgets online, and the orange bars signify what the data should look like if this portion of the proposed HB1399 should pass. Currently, only 34 out of 112 cities publish their current budgets online.

Figure 2

Fiscal Transparency of Cities of First Class: Online Budget Publication

The implication of having this kind of web transparency is that it provides residents with equal and sustained access to government information. Some may argue against web transparency by asserting that in Arkansas poor internet connection in rural areas may undermine the effectiveness of the proposed law. However, many residents are currently being left behind regarding the reach of local newspapers. People are not reading newspapers like they have in the past, and current law without amendment limits government transparency because it restricts the information to being placed in local newspapers alone.

A cursory view of the 2022 newspaper circulation data of Arkansas’s newspaper of record, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (ADG), reveals an average daily distribution of 27,321 copies and 66,788 Sunday copies (as published in the ADG’s classifieds [Sunday 9/25/2022] required by the US Postal Service). According to the last census data, there are about 1,993,031 people over the age of 18 in the state. When we compare this number of the daily distribution of newspapers to the number of people over the age of 18 in the state, one way or the other, a part of the population is being missed or not being served with information. Hence the need to amend the current law on publication requirements for municipalities.

In addition, as of year-end 2018, 59.1% of Arkansas’s rural population had access to fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps internet, up from 16.0% in 2013. This number is expected to go up from 2022 with the “Arkansas State Broadband Plan” launched by Governor Asa Hutchinson in May 2019, and the establishment of the grant program aimed at providing high-speed broadband to residents in rural communities. Most parts of rural Arkansas are expected to have access to internet service with download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps from 2022.

Using websites to distribute information to the public is a powerful tool for boosting government transparency. In particular, the transparency of the web is vital for advancing equal and sustained public access to government information, ensuring that this information is easily accessible to everyone.

The Arkansas General Assembly convenes for the 2023 general session on January 9, 2023. Over the weeks and months that follow, the Legislature will consider bills on a wide variety of issues affecting individuals and businesses in Arkansas. Researchers at ACRE have been hard at work since the last legislative session conducting basic research in our primary policy areas of government transparency, labor market regulations (especially occupational licensing), and fiscal policy (both tax and spending issues).

Based on our research at ACRE, we’ve also put together a list of our Top 10 Policy Goals for the next legislative session. These policy goals encompass major reforms that legislators could implement which our research and the research of other academics suggest will improve the economic fortunes of Arkansans. We invite you to take a look at our list of recommendations in the linked document which also provides references to the research supporting our ideas, but in brief here are our policy goals:

• Occupational Licensing
  1. Universal recognition of licenses from other states
  2. Lowering barriers to obtaining licenses such as unnecessary educational and training requirements
  3. Using less restrictive regulations than occupational licensing, such as registrations and certifications
• Taxes and Spending
  1. Structural changes to the state budget, such as a “tax and expenditure limit” which puts a limit on state government growth
  2. Continuing the reductions in personal and corporate income taxes that began in 2015
  3. Targeted spending reforms, especially by learning from other states that spend more efficiently than Arkansas
  4. Reducing state spending on targeted economic development incentives
• Government Transparency
  1. Expanding transparency at the local level
  2. Fiscal transparency for first-class cities in Arkansas, following successful transparency reforms for counties in Arkansas in recent years
  3. Transparency for federal influxes of funds, such as the various federal assistance plans passed during the pandemic

As the legislature gets under way and bills start to be filed and discussed, ACRE researchers are willing and excited for the opportunity to help educate lawmakers and the general public on the costs and benefits of potential policy changes in our research areas. As in past years, ACRE staff will appear before legislative committees to explain how our research informs policies under consideration, as well as work with local media to help explain to Arkansans how policy changes may impact them.

Finally, ACRE is also excited to announce the release of our Annual Report for 2021-2022. If you don’t know much about ACRE and our programs, this report is a great way to learning about all the things we do for students at UCA, and to help educate Arkansans generally about economics and public policy. We look forward to continuing this work over the next few months during the legislative session, as well as throughout the rest of the year after the session concludes.

According to the Pew Research Center article, “,” published on June 6, 2022, only two in ten Americans trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always.”Ěý The seemingly good news for state governments is that people trust their state and local governments more than the federal government says authors John O’Leary, Angella Welle, and Sushumna Agarwal, in another article “,” published by Deloitte on September 22, 2021.Ěý

Transparency is a crucial ingredient in ensuring that people trust their government. As stewards of public resources, public officials are expected to be transparent on how they use public resources, whether from federal, state, or local government sources. That is the point Joyce Ajayi makes in her op-ed “.” Ěý In the op-ed published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on September 24, Joyce Ajayi explains that Arkansas has received over $8 billion in COVID-19 relief funds from a combination of funding portfolios from several federal laws passed to address the pandemic. The $8 billion is equivalent to writing a check of over $2,600 to every Arkansan.Ěý

Ajayi questions how transparent Arkansas has been with COVID-19 funds. Such questions and concerns are not in a vacuum. Research conducted by the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) scholars reveals that some states have been transparent with COVID-19 funds providing their residents with detailed information on how these funds were spent. Joyce Ajayi points to States such as Idaho, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee as exemplars.

How did Arkansas fare when compared to the states mentioned above? Not so well. Ajayi rightly concludes that:

“F˛ąľ±±ôľ±˛Ô˛µ to track the influx of funds weakens the efficiency of the efforts invested in the crisis response and can also result in corruption, which puts the administration of these taxpayer dollars at risk of misuse.ĚýSome portion of the COVID-19 relief funds could be lost to corruption if state and local governments do not ensure that the transparency of the entire process is maintained.”

In other words, as discussed earlier, a lack of transparency breeds distrust in the government.Ěý

So, what does Arkansas need to do to promote trust in the government? The simple answer is to emulate what states such as Idaho, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee have done and adhere to Ajayi’s recommendation to

Ěý“Utilize open data initiatives like transparency websites and other online technology to provide accountability for using the funds.”Ěý

For more on this topic, read ACRE’s research:

Coronavirus Relief Fund Reporting: How States are Promoting Transparency

COVID Relief Done Right: A Local Government Transparency Guide for Following the One-Time Influx of Funds by

Did you know that since the pandemic, the U.S. Treasury has disbursed to Arkansas a one-time influx of about under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)? That’s almost $1,000 per Arkansan.Ěý

Of these funds, about is designated as Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (LFRF). The LFRF is designed to provide needed relief to local governments to fund unexpected eligible expenses made towards vital public services and help replace lost revenue. The funds will help local governments like counties and municipalities with economic recovery, having been on the frontlines in responding to the pandemic.

Having pumped so many tax dollars towards a robust economic recovery, transparency and accountability must be part of the entire process. In my recent op-ed in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, I write about how the Arkansas state government can encourage fiscal transparency of the influx of the ARPA funds by providing technical assistance to each of Arkansas’ 75 counties on how the funds can be spent, tracked, and reported. I also encouraged local governments to report all uses of the ARPA funds using open government initiatives such as data portals and websites for public monitoring of government spending.

“Transparency is helping residents know their money is spent on true relief. It is also crucial to a well-functioning and democratic government.”

You can read the entire op-ed .

For more of our research on local government transparency, go here.