7/21/09

 

Editorials Cincinnati Enquirer

 

In one important respect, Gov. Ted Strickland has more power than the president of the United States – the ability to remove specific items from big spending bills without vetoing the entire bill itself.

 

Strickland used his line-item veto power effectively in signing the state’s belated two-year, $50.5 billion budget Friday, deleting 61 provisions that he felt – and we largely agree – had no business in the budget.

 

Key among those was a proposed pilot program, slipped into the budget without any real debate, that would authorize Hamilton County commissioners to sell advertising on county Web sites. Strickland wisely vetoed that measure, saying it needed careful study and debate on its possible financial impact and “other ramifications.”

 

He’s right, especially about those “other ramifications.” As we noted last week, such a loosely regulated scheme could create conflicts of interest, influence peddling and outright corruption. It would make county government less accountable by giving it a new revenue stream outside the purview of taxpayers. And it would unfairly compete with private-sector firms that rely on advertising, including The Enquirer.

 

But media outlets weren’t alone in opposing the Web ad measure. A wide range of opponents spoke out against it as Strickland weighed his veto options.

 

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce called it an “unfair use of taxpayer dollars” that would hurt private-sector job creation. Hamilton County Auditor Dusty Rhodes pointed out it also could compromise government Web site data security and interfere with county officials’ independent authority.

 

Strickland’s other line-item vetoes demonstrated the governor’s careful concern for maintaining fiscal discipline while preserving high-priority services. He rejected the creation of several councils, commissions and study groups that, he rightly pointed out, would only duplicate existing entities. He canceled a permanent reimbursement scheme for schools and local governments that ran counter to the state’s 2005 tax reform and new school funding standards. He vetoed a costly ban on the use of prison labor for maintenance at the governor’s mansion.

 

But the Hamilton County online ad measure was perhaps the highest-profile item. The proposal isn’t dead, but will be considered as part of House Bill 220 regarding public notices and advertisements. It may be tempting to adopt such a revenue option during tough economic times, but as proposed it would do more harm than good. Lawmakers should view it with a very skeptical eye.

 

While they’re at it, lawmakers also should consider ways to make public information more freely and immediately available online. Government agencies often are reluctant to provide public records to media outlets anyway, for a number of reasons. Now, the possibility of using that data to generate revenue could give them greater incentive to withhold data from the media and the public they serve, or make it more difficult to access comprehensively.

 

It is a matter of transparency, accountability and plain good government, and Ohio must not retreat on those principles.