Real Budget Process Reform

PRINT     E-MAIL STORY    SHARE

FACEBOOK

REDDIT

NEWSVINE

DIGG

DEL.ICIO.US

BLINKLIST

Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 | In recent months as our city continues its transition to the strong mayor form of government, the mayor and the City Council have come to loggerheads over budget cuts and the city's budget process itself. On the surface, the debate revolves around a key question: How much discretion does the mayor have as the "executive" to make cuts in programs to keep the budget in balance? 

This question first surfaced last fall when the Mayor had to make two changes in funding levels for two pet earmarks of the City Council as part of his efforts to balance the budget.  At the time Andrea Tevlin, the Independent Budget Analyst with the City Council, weighed in with her concerns over the mayor's budget changes. 

Last week, an all-out food fight and war of words erupted between City Councilmembers and the mayor's office in the wake of a formal proposal made by Tevlin to require council approval before the mayor changes any allocations in the budget mid-year.

The City Council argues that it is only concerned with good public policy -- that as the legislative body for the city it has a right and obligation to review mid-year changes to the budget in public and approve them. The mayor contends that he needs flexibility to manage department resources day-to-day in the most efficient way possible and that transfers between budget accounts are a routine and necessary part of managing complex organizations such as the city.

From a policy perspective, both the mayor and the council are right. And from a policy perspective a reasonable compromise can and should be worked out that satisfies the objectives of both branches.

Unfortunately, like the mayor, I highly doubt most on the City Council are really interested in "good policy" by raising this issue. In fact, three years ago, I offered a proposal similar to the one presented by Tevlin -- only to have these same City Council members emphatically dismiss the idea. Somehow I doubt the same City Council members -- who insisted on giving vast authority to the then-city manager to monkey with the budget mid-year out of the public's view -- suddenly have had a change of heart.

Moreover, I'm concerned that the same City Council members -- who spent our city into massive budget deficits and papered over those deficits with accounting gimmicks and erroneous financial statements -- suddenly claim to have the backbone to make the tough decisions to get our city out of its current financial crisis.

Dig a bit deeper and you will find the City Council's real motive is to assert its authority over the mayor in an effort to slow down, if not derail, reforms of city departments and efforts to cut city spending to balance the budget. Indeed, to date, the council has only sought changes in the budget process to restore cuts made by the mayor, rather than support the cuts. What's worse, the council has yet to identify alternative cuts to keep the budget in balance.

Hidden in the council's proposal is a sneak attack on one of the most important tools being used by the mayor to streamline city government: Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR). The city's labor unions are up-in-arms over the BPR efforts and have put immense pressure on the councilmembers to halt the studies. Remember Proposition C? BPR is supposed to be a pre-cursor to Managed Competition. Stop BPR and you derail the will of the people for full, fair and open competition for efficiencies in government.

Put simply, the council seems intent on moving the city back to the days of candy-land budgeting -- and they are shamefully doing it in the name of transparency.

Instead of taking the bait, the mayor should call their bluff. If this City Council is serious about making the tough decisions, offer them a reformed budget process to make them a partner in that important undertaking.

A compromise budget reform package could feature three important elements:

Add Your Comments