General Lee Marches Through Budget Proposal

It’s budget season in Connecticut’s largest city, and fiscal hawk John Marshal Lee raises a whole bunch of questions as the City Council’s Budget and Appropriations Committee examines Mayor Bill Finch’s spending plan. From Lee:

Council members and representatives of City governance present for the 2015-16 process, thank you for scheduling three hearings for this spring. I am willing to wager that most of your voters will not know about this hearing as it was less well made known than have either snow emergencies or cessation of snow emergencies in recent years.

The public really wants to understand where they stand fiscally. For most of the Finch years, based on the October 1, 2008 revaluation, Bridgeport homeowners have watched their property values decrease yet their assessments have not changed, but budgets have increased calling for higher taxes. For the most part you have watched that process, including the stifling of the revaluation, and because you have not offered sufficient disapproval, the administration has prevailed.

Not only have values decreased, but the cost of property taxes has increased in most years. So citizens who own property see their wealth decrease and their cost of services increase, except this year, where because of an upcoming election they have predictably sensed that taxes would not be increased this year.

Let’s look back over the past seven years, the Finch years. The annual audits seem to tell us that each year the budget has shown a surplus. Isn’t that a reason to cheer? But the Finch administration has not caused attention to rest on this balanced budget success has it? It is not one of the things pointed to when the statement is made that Bridgeport is getting better every day.

Why would that be? Well it could be that no one stands up to explain to the public how City finances work, how the City Council plays a strong part in determining what is set in motion and how it gets paid for. Who is that person, or persons? If it is not someone on Budget and Appropriation who can it be? Is there a meeting to discuss alternatives for Capital Funding? If the City operating budget of around $290 Million (net of BOE) takes nearly 350 pages to explain, why is the next year’s $42 Million Capital budget shown on less than two pages? Where is the detail for this year? Where is the detail for past years to show what was approved, from where it was funded, and to provide a report on past projects and funds?

A finance board and better fiscal reporting would allow for this but we have neither. For two years, the City Finance Department has provided a June monthly report after auditing, a FINAL report, but little or no attention has been turned to the report. In 2013 we inquired as to the receipt of nearly $500,000 of revenue as part of the Comptroller’s Final report but no one has answered where that came from or where it was used. From that same report we noted that 15 members of the Council followed the lead of President McCarthy in spending almost $30,000 of taxpayer funds two years ago as charitable contributions in an election year. Yet no one has explained the action, probably illegal, or how it came to be. There is no taxpayer whom I have met who feels that the Council is the right group to be making charitable donations with taxpayer funds.

And then you come together to hear from your constituents, but have you taken any action based on their observations, requests, or logic? These sessions are not respectful dialogues or conversations, yet they can be, but you maintain your rules that limit the few of us who take the time to observe and report, so that we do not have conversations. Is it any wonder that the public has more important things to do than involve it in sham conversations?

So, in summary, seven years of Finch budgets and every one shows a surplus at year end. Is that really great news? Or is it a tribute to Tom Sherwood who has created a budget for you to approve that has more expenses placed into positions, full time and other, fringe benefits and other expenses and services than are ever intended to be spent. And if the final June reports are not used to look at actual expenses for several years in a row, are you sure that you have tightened up appropriations adequately? Perhaps this year by the question of Council person Swain ought to be a year where taxes are rolled back and lowered?

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for several years has shown public safety overtime to be excessive in the millions. Monthly reports have shown overtime in police, fire and emergency operations to be the only areas where variances are noted. When you know what is a problem, when that problem manifests itself, month after month and year after year, including five chiefs in the police department, where is the problem? How will it be solved quickly? Perhaps the reporting of these three departments is in too much detail. Perhaps if each department only reported the six lines favored by OPM Director Tom Sherwood, we would be more aware of how we are wrestling with the problem.

A 20 page GREEN monthly fiscal report? Conversations with the public on fiscal matters? A listing of the Capital Budget process … approvals … changes … projects initiated … from where funded … completed … within budget … or in excess? Available on the internet? And monthly financials as executive summaries available to all on the internet, not just Council members? What do you think about providing taxpayers with some real information including correction of 20 or more errors in the CAFR-2014? Time will tell.