Define Dataset: State Checkbook (Finance and Contracts) #36

Open
emily878 opened this Issue Mar 6, 2015 · 14 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@emily878
Contributor

emily878 commented Mar 6, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Mar 9, 2015

Contributor

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.

Contributor

waldoj commented Mar 9, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@emily878

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@emily878

emily878 Mar 13, 2015

Contributor

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.)

Contributor

emily878 commented Mar 13, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Mar 13, 2015

Contributor

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

Contributor

waldoj commented Mar 13, 2015

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

@emily878

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@emily878

emily878 Mar 13, 2015

Contributor

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

Contributor

emily878 commented Mar 13, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Mar 13, 2015

Contributor

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. :)

Contributor

waldoj commented Mar 13, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Mar 13, 2015

Contributor

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

Contributor

waldoj commented Mar 13, 2015

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

@waldoj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Mar 23, 2015

Contributor

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

Contributor

waldoj commented Mar 23, 2015

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

@waldoj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Apr 2, 2015

Contributor

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

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

waldoj commented Apr 2, 2015

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

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Apr 3, 2015

Contributor

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.

Contributor

waldoj commented Apr 3, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@emily878

emily878 Apr 3, 2015

Contributor

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

Contributor

emily878 commented Apr 3, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Apr 3, 2015

Contributor

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:

sites

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

Contributor

waldoj commented Apr 3, 2015

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:

sites

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@emily878

emily878 Apr 3, 2015

Contributor

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

Contributor

emily878 commented Apr 3, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@waldoj

waldoj Apr 3, 2015

Contributor

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

Contributor

waldoj commented Apr 3, 2015

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment