2. The Budget Is Substantively Flawed.
So what's the big deal with an extra million dollars in spending? That's certainly a fair question, given that our governments routinely piss away millions at a time without the least bit of consternation. The problems are both real and symbolic.
The first budget (the one suported by seven members of Council) was balanced. It didn't require any money to be pulled from the City's "carryover surplus" (this is what the County calls a "rainy day" fund). It also didn't require the doubling of parking ticket fines.
The City is facing major economic hurdles over the next couple years. The first is the status of the City's retirement fund. It's underfunded. Chris Smitherman has been sounding the alarm bells on this for some time; while he may be a little over-alarmist on this issue, no one has seriously suggested that there's not a problem with the retirement fund.
The second problem is that Cincinnati will see a major revenue shortfall next year. For some reason, this hasn't garnered much attention, but the earnings tax--the tax on corporate profits inside the City--is necessarily going to be down, given the tough economic times. Because end-of-year numbers and collections aren't in, that hasn't caught up with the City yet. But it will. So a million-dollar spending spree is inherently irresponsible.
What's more, the choices the five-member budget majority made lack common sense. Their offices really need an extra five grand to operate? During budget negotiations, Councilmembers had agreed to go to represented (i.e. union) city employees to try to negotiate COLA increases out of contracts over the next year. But the budget passed gives a COLA raise to non-represented employees, so there's no chance that AFSCME would concede this.
Moreover, the final budget is based partially on an increase in parking ticket fines. That increase will not, in all likelihood, generate as much as Council has projected. The new fines are so prohibitively high that a number of factors will conspire to reduce the number of tickets written and fines collected. The tickets will have a greater deterrent effect (leading to fewer infractions). More people will contest their tickets. And fewer people will pay their tickets. Maybe there are sound policy reasons for high parking ticket fines, but those weren't the motive for the change; revenue was.
I was also critical of the forty thousand dollars budgeted to municipal gardens. Are the gardens a good thing? Yes, they are. But there are at least a half-dozen foundations who would find funds for this if a grant application were submitted. While this is a good government program in prosperous times, this isn't the sort of expenditure that should come from the City's rainy day fund--which we're certainly going to need at the end of next year.
Perhaps the worst part of this is that the leader of the Budget Coup d'Etat was John Cranley, who is essentially a lame duck, in that he's term-limited and cannot run in 2009. So Cranley just doesn't care about the budget problems that Council will face at the beginning of 2010. That's why all four dissenters are members likely to run for re-election. If the City had an extra million dollars to spend, perhaps it should have been spent shoring up the pension fund.
So when the City is laying off workers next Christmas, keep in mind that at least Councilmembers' personal staff got raises and neighborhoods got tulips. I'm sure that will make it worth it for those who lose their jobs.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
More On The City's Budget: Part I
Earlier this week, I posted briefly on the disastrous City Council budget and was criticized as "anti-intellectual." So let's see if some expanded remarks can make my problems clearer (and less dumb).
The Cincinnati budget is a magnificent error for two classes of reasons: procedural and substantive. Let's deal with each in turn.
1. The Budget Process Was Flawed.
On Wednesday, City Council passed a budget by a 7-2 margin. Following that vote, suddenly an "amended" budget was offered, and passed by a 5-4 vote. The new budget contained an extra million dollars in spending.
If you're interested in how the budget was passed, it's worth your time to pull up the podcast of the 6:00 hour of Brian Thomas's Thursday radio show. Go to about 21:30, where Councilmember Leslie Ghiz calls in and discusses the shenanigans pulled by John Cranley and Laketa Cole. Apparently, Cole's personal Christmas plans conflict with the City's budget process, so (of course) City residents take a back seat while Cole goes on vacation. Nonetheless, she signed the motion to pass the original budget when she returned. But behind closed doors, a group of Councilmembers, led by Cole (who had objections she failed to previously disclose) and Cranley got together and made plans to introduce the final budget.
What all this meant was that seemingly endless budget discussions--that took place publicly, in Finance Committee meetings--meant nothing. Everything was actually decided behind closed doors. In an era when the public is clamoring for transparency in government, a majority of our Council shut out the public. Worst of all? The five-member majority that passed the final budget refused to allow debate about it. After some initial criticisms by Jeff Berding, Laketa Cole made a cloture motion. So the City budget for the next two years was passed without being vetted in the Finance Committee and without public debate.
It's a tough day for me when Alex Triantafilou lights up Democrats on his blog and I have nothing to say in response. (In fact, on Thursday, he and I wrote largely the same thing.) I suppose I could point out that the budget wasn't passed by "five Democrats" but by four Democrats and a Charterite, as Qualls, whatever her affiliation in the past, is on Council as a Charterite, not a Democrat. It's hollow criticism, since we all know Charterites are just Democrats who think it's easier to win in Hamilton County if they don't call themselves Democrats. And we should keep in mind that Jeff Berding and Chris Bortz (a Dem d/b/a a Charterite) opposed the budget boondoggle.
Next post: the substantive problems with the budget.
The Cincinnati budget is a magnificent error for two classes of reasons: procedural and substantive. Let's deal with each in turn.
1. The Budget Process Was Flawed.
On Wednesday, City Council passed a budget by a 7-2 margin. Following that vote, suddenly an "amended" budget was offered, and passed by a 5-4 vote. The new budget contained an extra million dollars in spending.
If you're interested in how the budget was passed, it's worth your time to pull up the podcast of the 6:00 hour of Brian Thomas's Thursday radio show. Go to about 21:30, where Councilmember Leslie Ghiz calls in and discusses the shenanigans pulled by John Cranley and Laketa Cole. Apparently, Cole's personal Christmas plans conflict with the City's budget process, so (of course) City residents take a back seat while Cole goes on vacation. Nonetheless, she signed the motion to pass the original budget when she returned. But behind closed doors, a group of Councilmembers, led by Cole (who had objections she failed to previously disclose) and Cranley got together and made plans to introduce the final budget.
What all this meant was that seemingly endless budget discussions--that took place publicly, in Finance Committee meetings--meant nothing. Everything was actually decided behind closed doors. In an era when the public is clamoring for transparency in government, a majority of our Council shut out the public. Worst of all? The five-member majority that passed the final budget refused to allow debate about it. After some initial criticisms by Jeff Berding, Laketa Cole made a cloture motion. So the City budget for the next two years was passed without being vetted in the Finance Committee and without public debate.
It's a tough day for me when Alex Triantafilou lights up Democrats on his blog and I have nothing to say in response. (In fact, on Thursday, he and I wrote largely the same thing.) I suppose I could point out that the budget wasn't passed by "five Democrats" but by four Democrats and a Charterite, as Qualls, whatever her affiliation in the past, is on Council as a Charterite, not a Democrat. It's hollow criticism, since we all know Charterites are just Democrats who think it's easier to win in Hamilton County if they don't call themselves Democrats. And we should keep in mind that Jeff Berding and Chris Bortz (a Dem d/b/a a Charterite) opposed the budget boondoggle.
Next post: the substantive problems with the budget.
County Layoffs Handled Badly
There is no good way to lose your job. It's a devastating experience, no matter how it happens. Our jobs are inextricably linked to our identities--to say nothing of faith in our own financial stability in the future.
Having said that, though, it's astonishing how badly Hamilton County has been handling the layoffs. People arrived at work yesterday to be told that it would be their last day. Vacate the building by noon, they were told.
For many weeks, the HamCo Commissioners have made it clear to department heads that layoffs would be necessary. Why was the decision made to keep specific employees in the dark about whether they were on the chopping block? Certainly, these employees--some of whom have served the county for decades--deserved to be treated with more dignity than this.
Perhaps Commissioner Pepper (whose presence on the blogosphere makes him the most accessible of the commissioners) can help us with the answer to this. Was this a policy handed down from the Administration? Or did individual department heads make their own decision? And either way, again: why do it this way?
Having said that, though, it's astonishing how badly Hamilton County has been handling the layoffs. People arrived at work yesterday to be told that it would be their last day. Vacate the building by noon, they were told.
For many weeks, the HamCo Commissioners have made it clear to department heads that layoffs would be necessary. Why was the decision made to keep specific employees in the dark about whether they were on the chopping block? Certainly, these employees--some of whom have served the county for decades--deserved to be treated with more dignity than this.
Perhaps Commissioner Pepper (whose presence on the blogosphere makes him the most accessible of the commissioners) can help us with the answer to this. Was this a policy handed down from the Administration? Or did individual department heads make their own decision? And either way, again: why do it this way?
Friday, December 19, 2008
CityBeat Starts "MusicTown"
With the death of Cincymusic.com there has been a void for local musicians to lock horns with promoters and fans. CityBeat has stepped up to the plate with MusicTown: The New Cincinnati Music Message Board.
The direct link to the cite is: www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/forum/.
I'm on there as Cincyblog, and keep your flame wars to minimum!
The direct link to the cite is: www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/forum/.
I'm on there as Cincyblog, and keep your flame wars to minimum!
concert:nova Tonight!
One of the reasons Cincinnati has such a tremendous art scene is the simple fact that we have first rate musicians at the CSO and CCO who break new ground with collaborative projects like concert:nova. Tonight if you want to have a conversation that involves live music, video, and theatre into a single performance, then make your way to Christ Church Cathedral (318 E. Fourth St. Downtown)at 8PM and experience new interpretations on classic artistic pieces you will not see preformed in this combination anywhere else. For more details check out CityBeat's preview.
The show starts at 8PM at Christ Church Cathedral with a 9:30 reception to follow. Tickets are $20 or $10 for students and ETA members.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Rethinking Tasers
I hope to have more to say about this (perhaps over the weekend), but wanted to post a quick note now. We need to seriously reconsider the use of tasers by the Cincinnati Police Department and their proper placement in the continuum of force.
Today, Amnesty International released perhaps the most comprehensive report to date on Taser use in the United States. Among AI's final recommendations is that Taser use should be "limited to those situations where . . . officers are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious (potentially life-threatening) injury which cannot be contained by less extreme options."
The new report should be required reading for every member of City Council and all CPD policy-makers.
Today, Amnesty International released perhaps the most comprehensive report to date on Taser use in the United States. Among AI's final recommendations is that Taser use should be "limited to those situations where . . . officers are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious (potentially life-threatening) injury which cannot be contained by less extreme options."
The new report should be required reading for every member of City Council and all CPD policy-makers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)