Happy Hour
60 minutes with your flask before the council meeting starts.
Post-Partum Depression
Induced by the empty flask AFTER the meeting.
Last evening the council chamber Internet access once again disappeared, and when all was said and done, I was too tired and disgusted to post notes. I may or may not do so in the coming days.
The best news to report is that council chieftain Dan Coffey publicly uttered his intention not to serve as president in 2010. This was greeted with applause, which in turn led him to hiss loudly and state that moving back to the table would permit him to actually say what he thinks, although of course he's been doing so in the council chair all year, anyway, with the remainder of his compatriots content to sit on their hands as he besmirches rules of order, council and the entire city -- but hey, who cares, right?
I sure don't, at least today. Consequently, here is by-the-numbers coverage of another legislative debacle staged by political munchkins. Discuss if you wish.
It hits the fan: City Council rejects 2010 budget, argues over private meeting held last week, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).
New Albany council scrambles to plug $1.6 million budget hole, by Grace Schneider (Courier-Journal).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Restructuring of the city’s public safety departments to curb overspending was discussed during a council workshop Wednesday.
Daniel,
Can you explain why you used the word “overspending” instead of another term/phrase such as “over budget”?
“Over budget” is neutral accounting language.
“Overspending” is not neutral. It implies waste.
Just because something is over budget does not necessarily mean that there was waste. For example, police and fire may have been budgeted $X dollar but, because of an unforeseen emergency (like a terrorist attack), required spending beyond what was budgeted while still being non-wasteful.
I have no clue whether police, fire or other departments have spent wisely. Similarly, I have no clue if they were budgeted adequate resources in the first place. Those are political questions and the answers sometimes are merely political opinions. I can see why someone with a political agenda would use the the word “overspending.” I’m not sure why the Tribune, which I hope strives for neutrality, does the same.
Uh, Dan, don't you know the Tribune is in the back pocket of the administration? There's no way the Tribune would cast a bad light on them. Just ask the anonymous little people.
Oh, and I have some clue. Adequate resources are not available. Still, that does not absolve the administration of being "over budget". Once the budget is set, it is the executive branch's duty to govern(spend)within that budget.
As you stated, these are political questions. Want no parks? No street paving? No street sweeping?
Then there may be adequate resources to fund public safety at a certain level. Of course, the reverse is also an option. Fewer police and fire. No ambulance(s). It's a balancing act and it can be painful. IMO, it is pretty late in the year to just now be addressing the salary "over budgets".
What's with street sweeping anyway? Given the financial state of affairs here, I'd think that would be an easy cut.
Yeah, by far the majority of streets never get swept.
Cutting the sweeping could also help the police department because they wouldn't need the traffic enforcement officer who writes the tickets when people don't move their cars on the appointed day.
@SBA - can't tell if you are joking or not about street sweeping.
I never gave street sweeping a thought until I spent time in cities where they used people with brooms to sweep the streets instead of machines (Quito, Cuenca, Ambato Ecuador). Very dirty and dusty, even in well kept areas. Street sweeping machines are a very good thing.
Not joking at all
Could that big fancy new street sweeping machine have anything to do with being over budget?
Brandon,
You do realize that probably 95% of the city streets have never seen a street sweeper--machine or human. Wonder what happens to my dirt? If there are cups in the gutters of our streets, we pick them up.
The north side of Elm St gets swept probably once every 4-6 weeks. Not sure if they're busy doing something else, or if they're supposed to be sweeping them.
The only way I've found to guarantee that they come is to not move my car to the other side of the street.:-)
If you have a certain amount of money in an account, and you charge more than is in it, you overspent that amount. "Over budget" means they budgeted more than was needed. To be over the budget implies the same thing as to overspending your budget. Accountants may use whatever terminology they like, but it's the same reason we don't use police blotter in our crime stories. In confuses people.
"Just because something is over budget does not necessarily mean that there was waste"
That's something you're implying, I never did. Have a nice day.
I've lived on the North side of E Elm since August and I'm pretty sure it has yet to see the street sweeper
If you have a certain amount of money in an account, and you charge more than is in it, you overspent that amount.
Daniel,
Which dictionary are you using? I’m using Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, whose definition reads, in relevant part:
overspend … 1. to spend more than one can afford. ….. 3. to spend beyond one’s means.
Note that spending beyond ones means is different than spending beyond ones budget. Whether or not police spending was “more than one could afford” gets into issues of taxation, and tradeoffs between police and competing budget priorities. That is, what “one can afford” is not black or white. What was budgeted and what was spent is black and white.
A politically neutral phrase might have read, “Police spending exceeded the budgeted amount. The city council is looking for ways to trim expenses.”
I in no way fault Mr. Coffey for using the term “overspending.” As a council member, it is his job to take political positions, whether or not we agree with those positions. If it is his political opinion that police spending has been “more than we can afford,” there’s nothing wrong with the Tribune quoting him using the “overspending” language. In fact, it would be wrong not to report such.
But Mr. Coffey’s job and the Tribune’s job are very different. When the Tribune has two ways of making a statement, one that is black and white and one that is not, why choose the latter?
"Note that spending beyond ones means is different than spending beyond ones budget. "
Spending beyond one's means is different than spending beyond one's budget? Are you serious? Your means are your budget and if you overspend them, then you overspent your budget.
Of all the dumb arguments I've been involved in, this possibly takes the cake.
Daniel,
Let’s say I’m a successful businessperson and I make $1,000,000 a year, year after year, I live frugally, and I have millions more in the bank. I strictly watch my finances (how else would I become wealthy?) and I set out a personal budget at the beginning of each year.
Let’s say at the beginning of 2009, I budgeted $10,000 for a new roof.
Let’s say when summer rolled around, I decided I wanted a little different type of shingle, which was going to make the roof cost $12,000.
If I get the $12,000 roof, am I over budget? YES
Am I spending beyond my means or more than I can afford? NO
If you live paycheck to paycheck, have no expenses you can cut, and have no means of increasing your income, then de facto being over budget is the same as spending beyond your means.
However, the city has the ability to cut other programs, the city has the ability to increase its income, and the city has the ability to dip into reserves.
By your definition you could never overspend, because the only way to do so would be to spend money you don't have, which is impossible.
Bottom line there was a certain amount budgeted. That money was spent and then some. money will be taken out of funds not reserved for public safety to cover that. Call it what you want, I'm done with this argument. I just say go and ask 10 people on the street what the difference is in being over your budget and overspending, and you'll understand how pointless this is.
A side note onthe streetsweeper issue.
Unfortunately, as long as a large number of households continue to use the gutters on the streets as the preferred disposal method for lawn clippings and leaves, sweepers are a needed evil.
Anything left in the gutters when it rains (and boy has it), either ends up in the river or blocking the storm grates wchich further adds to our flooding woes.
As far as overspending, perhaps its time to look at issues sch as health insurance for council members, where else can one get full coverage for a part time job?
Most council members have regular jobs that provide this anyway. (not saying they dont deserve it, but ugly truths require ugly actions to fix them)
Take a look at city issued cell phones and smart phones. How many have them vs. how many actually REQUIRE them to effectively do their jobs?
There are a lot of nickle and dime issues that could be re-evaluated that could add up to substantial savings, but again over the long run.
Other than actually cutting services, that are barely up to par as it is, there is no real way to straighten this out in the short term.
Hopefully that tax appeal with the state will go through... (Mr. Clere, are you helping us out on this as one of our reps?)
"As far as overspending, perhaps its time to look at issues sch as health insurance for council members, where else can one get full coverage for a part time job?"
Chris d, check the paper tomorrow.
I just say go and ask 10 people on the street what the difference is in being over your budget and overspending
Daniel, most people rely on YOU to education them on the budget. If you set a low bar for yourself and your articles, then the people on the street never will know the difference between good budgeting and bad politics. Please reread what I wrote above, please stick to using words as defined in the dictionary, and please set a high bar for your writing. Alternatively, I suggest you move your articles to the editorial page where they would better fit.
yeah, Daniel, we've up-ed our standards - up yours.
"By your definition you could never overspend, because the only way to do so would be to spend money you don't have, which is impossible. "
If we are in fact going through a financial melt-down, then it might just have something to do with playing with money you don't have. In fact modern finance might just be based on the principle of making money with money you don't have.
ps, Daniel still waiting for a Tribune follow-up on that big NEWS story last week about the CCE meeting. Most newspapers will tend to follow a NEWS STORY with a follow-up, cause, well, it's news.
have you "up-d" your subscription? If not, it's like a mcdonalds customer complaining about burger king fries
Nothing really news worthy occurred at the meeting.
It was a Q&A session reagrding the EPA grants. Then a rehash of the miriad of violations at 2045 silver street. Discussions moved on to possible future use of the site, block grants, Stimulus funds grants, etc.
All in all a pretty informal, mundane session.
There 13 people in attendance including two environmental testing company representatives (3), City Officials (4) (Rosenberger, McLaughlin and Malysz, and a young woman whose name I did not catch)
Other than that nothing really newsworthy at all as a follow-up to a public notification of the meeting.
Oh yeah, 6 "citizens"
Post a Comment