A Straight Talk Blog from Rosie
“WHERE ARE MY RECEIPTS?” — Why the Only Way Forward for Illinois (and for District 111) is accountability, attendance, and better budgeting for taxpayers
By Rosetta “Rosie” Brown — Alderwoman, Ward 4 (Alton) & Candidate for State Representative, District 111
“Where are my receipts?” — what accountability actually requires
As an alderwoman, I’ve watched good projects stumble because paperwork, monitoring, or reporting wasn’t built from day one. That’s not a talking point—that’s lived experience. Years ago, my Socks for Tots drive became a cautionary tale. Over a decade, roughly $11,000 flowed from Alton Township to support kids in need. When receipts weren’t retained to a standard the funder accepted, the whole effort became a story about documentation, not children. It forced our city to tighten rules: if public money touches a project—every dollar must have a receipt and a clear purpose.
At the state and local level, we have a modern template for accountability: the U.S. Treasury’s State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Final Rule. It spells out, in plain terms:
Who is the beneficiary (the person or business harmed) vs. who is the subrecipient (the entity hired to run the program). Beneficiaries do not have to follow federal grant admin rules; subrecipients do—procurement, cost principles, recordkeeping, audits.
Reporting & deadlines: funds had to be obligated by Dec. 31, 2024, and spent by Dec. 31, 2026; failing that, money can be recouped.
A $10M standard allowance for revenue loss (to fund “government services”), but with clear prohibitions: no pension deposits, no debt service/rainy‑day backfills, no programs undermining public‑health guidance, and strict conflict‑of‑interest rules.
Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200) applies to subrecipients and procurement—meaning competitive purchasing, cost reasonableness, and documented monitoring are not optional.
Whether it’s ARPA dollars, state grants, or local appropriations, the burden is on us to build systems that can answer the public, in real time: Who got funded? Why? Under what rule? Where’s the invoice? What did we achieve?
That’s how we avoid “projects of promise” turning into “projects under question.”
A win for Alton—and the lesson behind it
Recently, I brought forward a resolution to repair and refresh the Boys & Girls Club of Alton playground. The request was $30,000. Alton Township approved the grant, awarding funds to All Inclusive Rec, LLC (Farmington, MO) to complete the playground essentials. That was the right call for kids and families—a win for our city. The City of Alton pointed to the Alton Township minutes as the official record for the grant because the Township—not the City—was the funder. That’s how the chain of custody for facts is supposed to work.
Equally important, it wasn’t about who received the funds; it was about what we bought, how the money was spent, and which public account was most appropriate for the gift. Going forward, we’re taking this as a “full‑speed‑ahead” lesson: stronger reporting, simple but firm Accounting 101 (invoices, scopes, delivery confirmations), and a “receipts-at-every-step” culture that shouldn’t burden community partners—but will protect the public’s trust.
That’s how you turn a good deed into a repeatable model.
Funding today, entrepreneurship tomorrow—only if the rules are clear
There’s a bigger picture here. We want the next generation—especially in downstate communities—to see public investments as a springboard to entrepreneurship, not a maze that only the well-connected can navigate. But that promise is real only when today’s grants build skills, capacity, and confidence for tomorrow’s businesses. Otherwise, we risk funding “one-off” projects that don’t compound into local ownership or jobs. Entrepreneurship of tomorrow underscore this tension with capital access and readiness matter and with the rules that determine who can participate and how impact is measured.
What removes the guesswork? Clear eligibility, lean reporting, timely payment, and visible outcomes. That’s how you turn a township grant into a launchpad—and not a dead end—for small vendors, trades, and youth employment pipelines.
The moment we’re in: promise, pressure, and a pause button
Governor JB Pritzker just used his State of the State and budget address to frame a tight year ahead—floating a roughly $56B plan with new revenue ideas (including a social‑media platform fee and added casino revenue) while warning about federal cuts and affordability pressures on Illinois families. He also proposed a two‑year suspension of state tax incentives for new data centers, citing power‑grid strain, consumer energy costs, and the need to study real impacts before we keep writing checks.
That pause matters downstate. Data centers can expand tax base and construction jobs, but they also drive huge electricity and water loads with relatively few permanent jobs. The Governor’s plan would halt new credits on July 1 while agencies examine utility bills, grid stability, and net economic value. Other states are wrestling with the same trade‑offs, and Illinois’ General Assembly will have to vote on any change. What this means for downstate? If the budget slips or stalls, our grants, capital timelines, and reimbursements get delayed first. That’s why accountability is not red tape—it’s how Alton, Wood River, Bethalto, and Granite City keep our place in line.
“How do you vote NO on a state budget?” And what makes budgets fail?
In Springfield, a budget passes when there are the votes—and it fails when there aren’t enough lawmakers willing to certify the math and the priorities. Budgets fail when:
Revenues don’t match expenses, or the gap is filled with one‑time tricks the caucuses can’t accept.
The plan relies on assumptions (federal dollars, new taxes, or savings) that are politically or legally shaky.
Negotiators can’t square regional priorities (Chicago area vs. downstate), or can’t justify new spending amid deficit forecasts.
A vote against the budget can mean:
The numbers don’t add up.
The spending doesn’t reflect district needs.
Accountability is missing.
House Republicans—including our own Rep. Amy Elik (District 111)—have been blunt about transparency and spending growth, signaling they’ll oppose any plan they view as “smoke and mirrors.” Agree or not, that pressure can improve the final bill if it yields clearer numbers and tighter controls—not just headlines.
How state & federal reporting really works (and why “receipts” matter)
We already have a strong accountability playbook in the U.S. Treasury’s State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Final Rule—useful beyond ARPA dollars because it sets a standard for who’s responsible for what:
Beneficiary vs. subrecipient: Beneficiaries are the people or entities harmed by the pandemic who receive aid; subrecipients are organizations implementing a public program on the government’s behalf. Beneficiaries don’t follow federal grant admin rules; subrecipients must (procurement, cost principles, records, audits).
Deadlines & recoupment: SLFRF required obligations by Dec. 31, 2024 and expenditures by Dec. 31, 2026, with the threat of recoupment when rules aren’t followed. That discipline—plan, obligate, deliver—belongs in every public program.
Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200) applies to subrecipients: competition, reasonableness, documentation, monitoring. It’s not “extra work”; it’s how we prevent fraud, speed audits, and keep projects moving.
Local translation: If the City, Township, or County funds a partner, we still own the oversight. That means simple forms, scoped deliverables, and a public log of “who got what, for what, and what happened.” That protects everyone—the taxpayer, the partner, and the kids who just want a safe place to play.
Who is accountable—really?
State & federal agencies: set rules, release funds, and audit compliance.
Local governments: choose projects, execute contracts, and monitor subrecipients; they own the risk if partners mis‑spend.
Nonprofits & contractors (subrecipients): must follow federal grant rules if they’re implementing a program on the government’s behalf; they keep documentation and submit reports.
Beneficiaries (families, small businesses): receive aid because they’re impacted; they typically aren’t subject to grant admin rules but may need to demonstrate eligibility.
This distinction matters when people ask, “Who lost the receipt?” In many cases, the government must keep the audit trail—even if a community partner delivered the service—because the government is still the steward of the taxpayers’ dollars. We adopted that mindset in Alton—and it should resonate up to Springfield. If taxpayers can’t see who got what, for what purpose, and what changed, the system—not the people—failed.
Entrepreneurs: “I have an EIN. Am I a business?” (Hard truth)
An EIN is a federal tax ID. It does not create a legal entity in Illinois. If you want to contract with government or receive certain grants, you’ll typically need:
State registration (e.g., LLC or corporation with the Illinois Secretary of State) or a registered sole proprietorship/DBA, depending on the program.
A good‑standing certificate, W‑9, SAM.gov (if federal dollars), and the capacity to invoice and retain records for audits.
Basic accounting (chart of accounts, bank separation of funds, documented time and expenses).
Without this, you may still be a beneficiary (e.g., a micro‑grant), but you’re unlikely to be eligible as a subrecipient or contractor—and you certainly won’t pass a federal Uniform Guidance check. That’s how “systems and paperwork fail”—the vision is there, but the entity, bookkeeping, and procurement trail are not.
Not a blame game—this is system design
This isn’t about Socks for Tots. It’s about you—the taxpayer—and whether every public dollar in District 111 has a job, a timeline, and a receipt. It’s also about whether your paid city and township officials show up, vote, and document decisions so funds reach families, small businesses, and kids—without waste or delay.When paperwork fails, the public loses—not just the grantee. The fix is systemic:
Public Attendance & Voting Logs (Local Boards & Councils)
What it is: Publish member attendance and roll‑call votes for every appropriation, grant, and contract.
Why it matters: Paid officials are paid to show up. A “no vote,” “missed vote,” or “present” without engagement can stall a grant cycle, delay a bid, or force a project to miss a deadline—translating into higher costs or lost funding. (When minutes document motions and votes—like the Township’s June–July 2023 records—taxpayers can see who moved, seconded, and approved spending.)
Taxpayer effect: Fewer postponements, fewer re‑bids, lower legal/administrative costs.
Pre‑Award Checklists for Subrecipients
What it is: Before money moves, require entity registration (EIN plus state registration), W‑9, financial controls, conflict‑of‑interest policy, and a simple monitoring plan aligned to Uniform Guidance.
Why it matters: Prevents “after‑the‑fact” cleanups and clawbacks.
Taxpayer effect: Dollars reach residents faster; less chance of ineligible use and recoupment.
Quarterly “Receipts Reports”
What it is: Public, plain‑English sheets listing project, amount, vendor/subrecipient, rule citation (if federal), status, and outcomes.
Why it matters: Converts FOIA into a dashboard; speeds audits and community trust. (City FOIA and Township minutes illustrate how such documents underpin public confidence.)
Taxpayer effect: Lower “trust tax,” fewer rumors, better oversight.
Affordability Screens for Incentives & New Fees
What it is: Publish a household‑level impact statement for incentives, taxes, or pauses (e.g., expected effect on utility bills for a typical family if more data centers are subsidized).
Why it matters: Stops “good‑sounding” ideas that raise costs at home.
Taxpayer effect: Predictable household bills; smarter growth.
“Stability First” Funding Policy
What it is: Prioritize programs that build capacity and readiness (training, compliance, timely payments) so local firms and nonprofits can scale. A Harvard analysis shows how unstable federal funding ripples into fewer startups and lower GDP—proof that consistent public finance strengthens local enterprise ladders.
Taxpayer effect: More local bidders, better prices, stronger regional economy.
Attendance is accountability: why showing up to vote matters
When a paid official misses a meeting or abstains without cause:
You may lose money. Grants and contracts often require timely governing‑body approval. Missed votes can blow deadlines and push projects into the next cycle—when costs are higher or funds are gone. (The Township’s June–July 2023 minutes show how the opposite—full attendance and recorded action—lets money move.)
You pay more for the same thing later. Re‑bids carry inflation and admin costs.
You get fewer services now. Delayed approvals mean delayed repairs, slower reimbursements, and slipped capital schedules—particularly downstate, where budget lags hit first.
What did we miss when votes are missed?
Sometimes a lower contract price (lost to inflation), a grant window (closed), or a regulatory deadline (triggering penalties or recoupment risk in federal programs). The cost isn’t abstract; it’s your neighborhood’s project—later and pricier.
The state debate, in plain terms
Governor JB Pritzker is advancing a budget pitched as “affordability,” paired with a data‑center incentive pause to guard ratepayers and study real impacts. Lawmakers must test whether the revenue ideas (e.g., a social‑media platform fee) and assumptions hold.
Rep. Amy Elik and House Republicans want disciplined spending and fewer “short‑term fixes,” pushing for clearer numbers. When both sides must document assumptions, taxpayers win.
Illinois’ AI/data‑center pause is a proactive move. It protects consumer from rate spikes, verify job/benefit claims, and ensure the grid can carry the load before locking in more incentives. It doesn’t ban data centers; it says: bring receipts—energy, jobs, tax base, and community value—or wait two years while we measure. That’s the same spirit we need across the budget: prove the impact, then fund the program.
The truth is that pressures are real. What wins confidence isn’t the speech; it’s the ledger—projects with scopes, milestones, eligible‑use citations, Uniform Guidance‑compliant files, and public dashboards. That’s how we keep faith with the people who pay the bills.
Bottom line: Demand the receipts—the ledgers, the votes, the milestones, and the household impact statements—before anyone asks you to believe the slogans.
Administration must be accountable at every level—not just the end users completing forms. When the state or a township funds a project, we must build the file, monitor delivery, and show the public the receipts.
Whether the Alton Township’s $30,000 for the Boys & Girls Club was the right investment and a model we can repeat has a future to answer to. Clear purpose, proper account, public minutes, and delivered outcome. That’s how we protect our $11,000 Socks for Tots win and that’s how we make the next win easier—not harder.
Let’s take this “receipts‑first” culture from Alton all the way to Springfield—so that every child, small business, and taxpayer in District 111 knows their dollars have a job, a timeline, and a receipt.
The question isn’t “Are you for or against spending?” It’s:
Can you show me the work?
Who benefited?
What rule allowed it?
And where are my receipts?
That’s how we honor taxpayers, protect downstate, and build the Illinois our families deserve. If you can’t show it, you can’t fund it. If you can show it, you can scale it.
A civil leader serves first—filling gaps, moving people and resources to where kids, seniors, and working families live. A political leader votes, negotiates, and sets rules that make those civil‑society wins repeatable and auditable. We need both in District 111. As the late and great Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. said, “If you fall behind, run faster.” I fell behind on documentation once—and I learned. Now I’m running faster for accountability and fiscal responsibility.
Rosie Brown for Illinois State Rep — District 111
Rooted in Community. Ready for change.