Bobbing For Budget Accuracy

OIB readers John Marshall Lee and Andy Fardy are part of team BOB–Budget Oversight Bridgeport–a collection of city taxpayers cynical about city budget numbers. They attend public meetings, review budgets past and present as well as spending items. Lee files his latest commentary, with input from BOB, as city officials prepare for a public hearing on the budget tonight at 6 in City Council chambers.

As April 15th passed by last week, people reflected on their income tax responsibilities even if these had been settled months before. Here in the City, the City Council is in the midst of a five-week struggle to review Mayor Finch’s proposed budget of $517,815,075 for 2013. Up to 24 evening and Saturday meetings over a 33-day period are held to see if extra taxes up to $24 Million equaling a 7% increase are really necessary and affordable.

In this second year of Budget Oversight Bridgeport observations, we continue to be disappointed by the lack of high-level fiscal inquiry represented by Council questions. True, the Council persons are not trained for their “watchdog” duty. And it often seems they have no sense of being stewards of taxpayer money. They fail to request additional fiscal detail in the regular eleven* monthly reports to include, for example, actual expenses or revenues for the previous year, and the variances therefrom. They limit themselves to an uninformed and lapdog status.

At this time when they look at a Department they have no line item 12th-month expense number from the previous year to make a comparison to what the City supplies in their report as the “2011 actual number” provided by the Mayor. They must assume such figures are “complete and accurate.” I am questioning the completeness and accuracy today. Without the previous year closing line-item expenditures the public can only guess where taxpayer funds from “ghost positions or expenses” are actually spent. This is called “slush.” The Mayor is derelict in his Charter duty, Chapter 9, Section 7. The OPM director makes an annual statement about providing monthly reports (one assumes for 12 months) that fails also. In 2011 he supplied three reports only, covering 11 months only. That is not what his monthly ‘goal’ states.

Neither the Council nor the public can tell how all revenues are actually spent in a given year. The external audit completed six months after the fiscal year does not provide any line-item data. The next proposed budget is the only place where one can currently view a City presentation about what the supposed expenses were in the previous year. Mayor Fabrizi’s budgets used to show three years of past actual data. Mayor Finch shows only one year. Is the material presented “complete and accurate?”

About ten years ago the City Council, by Ordinance, authorized the “internal auditor” to prepare a report annually of all purchases made through City purchasing department, like food, paper, computers, utilities, professional services, and lots of other “stuff.” What shows about 2011 City Purchases in the Legislative Department (the City Council)? General Stipends (line item 2095TPS) for City Council members indicate only $26,000 scattered among its own and two other department budgets. But the Legislative budget for 2013 indicates the Stipends expense was actually $114,000. Would you think of this as “budget transparency?” How do you reconcile these numbers that differ by $88,000? Shouldn’t Council stipends be a matter of open and transparent public record on a quarterly basis as to who requests reimbursement for how much and for what purpose without forcing a Freedom of Information request? Does the Council need to be reminded who provides the stipend funds they are spending?

Next go to the Chief Administrative Office department and line item 56180 Other Services indicating an actual expense of $103,000. The Purchases report for Services-Other indicates $434,900.02, an amount $330,000 in excess of related CAO 2011 actual expenses in the 2013 budget. Are you curious why the following were not budgeted, and are not reported as actual but were shown in the CAO Department? Which ones do you question? Merritt Insurance and Hartford Insurance expenses exceed $46,000, Morgan Rees, $47,450, Thomson Coburn $175,000, electronic technology $19,153, Dworken Hillman $37,900 and the State and Federal lobbyists total $109,000. These amounts are not in the Actual 2011 expense column in the 2013 CAO department. What is the reason for this? How do you reconcile the use of taxpayer money without full and accurate reporting?

And Tom Sherwood’s own department, OPM, with only about $10,000 of “stuff” line item funding for 2013, and less than that recorded ‘Actual’ for 2011, still shows $87,491 total expenses in the 2011 purchasing report or an excess of nearly $80,000 of taxpayer money spent, but not recorded in Actual 2011. This is not budget transparency. “Stuff” expenses include: David M. Grant $8,077, Vazzy’s $3,700, Pivot Ministries $2,500, We Transport LLC $17,200, Titan Capital ID $11,250 and SPRGolf LLC $19,982. One can only imagine how these fit into OPM Goals and Objectives or in their “budget” since some of them were apparently recorded after the budget year closed on June 30, 2011.

The variance between these numbers and the amounts in just these departments is material to public trust. This is about taxpayer money. City Council and taxpayers have a reasonable expectation the various public reports are “complete and accurate.” Without the June report the Budget and Administration “watchdogs” and the public are blindfolded as to what is happening. They deserve the full “budget transparency” pledged by Mayor Finch for which he claims an annual award. We are not getting this. There may be some simple explanation for the City departments handling funds in this manner, but I cannot think of one. Isn’t it about time, for Bridgeport to create meaningful variance reports, post them every month of the year, provide more time for B & A to review proposed budgets, and allow the public more time to comment and question at public meetings? All of these are a part of open, accountable and transparent fiscal governance and not present in Bridgeport today. Public trust needs to be re-established, and fully verified, before people are willing to consider any tax increase. The process is broken.

* The City Charter directs the Mayor to provide revenue, expense and variance budget reports monthly. He fails to send the June 30 report. Ask him why not? Why is Bridgeport unique among CT towns and cities in preventing its public from seeing the actual line item totals (including where “slush” is spent) in departmental budgets?