Loading ...KEEP AN EYE ON MORE THAN THE WEATHER
We’re all paying attention to the weather this morning, but I have my eye on something taking place tonight. The City-County Council’s Public Safety Committee is taking up an ordinance to spend more than seven million dollars of your hard earned money. It’s supposed to be for “public safety” but the ordinance doesn’t spell out exactly where the money is going.
There is $5,000,000 for “personal services.” There’s another $156,000 for “supplies.” $127,000 for “capital outlays.” And my personal favorite, $1,317,000 for “other services and charges.” Lord only knows what’s hidden in that line item.
This proposal is typical of what is wrong with the current Council. It was put on the agenda under questionable circumstances, and there is no breakdown of expenditures for the public to see exactly where their money is going. It was this kind of budgetary chicanery that contributed to the majority party’s loss this past November.
Hopefully this behavior will stop come January 1.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:08 am
The four somewhat ambiguous spending categories are specified by State law and demanded by the Indiana State Board of Accounts. Those four labels are used by law by every Hoosier governmental entity. It’s not chicanery by Indianapolis Democrats - it’s auditing lingo used from Steuben County to Posey County and everyplace in between.
More detailed documentation supporting those appropriations exists. Ask for it!
December 5th, 2007 at 9:13 am
If there’s one thing that irritated me during the mayoral campaign cycle, it was Ballard’s battle cry against “$68 million in miscellaneous spending, which could be eliminated from the budget.”
That sounds great…to anyone who’s never taken a financial accounting class. But for the rest of us educated folk, we understand that expenses such as office supplies, debt service payments, etc. can be lumped into a “miscellaneous” category. If you want to campaign against office supplies, knock yourself out. But at least have the decency to dig into it a bit before preying on the ignorance of the general public just for the mob mentality effect.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:24 am
? “Mob mentality”
? “Ignorance of the general public”
If only we had an aristocracy of geniuses (like yourself) to run the rest of our lives… how great that would be.
but on the other hand, we live in a democracy, we had an election, and the voters rejected your elitist point of view… get over it my friend. Move on.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:25 am
$68 million in “office supplies”? Wow, you must use a lot of erasers.
Wilson,
You sure those forms aren’t “administrative rules as prescribed by law”? I can’t find the Indiana Code that explicitly delineates any rules about financial reporting categories.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:33 am
It must be the last installment of payoffs to the cronies of the Marion County Democratic Party. There will be a lot of political hacks thrown out on the streets on Jan. 1 and they’ll need something to hold them over for a while.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:18 am
If asking that people running for office do a little homework and give us some specifics is an “elitist point of view” then sign me up.
I voted FOR Ballard (albeit in a lesser-of-two-evils kinda way just like everyone else) because I believe the city budget CAN and MUST be trimmed. I just happen to think that encouraging public outrage because words like “misc” and “other” appear on a balance sheet is irresponsible if you don’t bother to find out WHAT those “misc” and “other” items are. Forgive me for espousing such an “elitist” notion as due diligence…
December 5th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Well Centrist, since you asked so nicely. OK, I forgive you. Not sure how that helps anything, but there you have it. ;)
December 5th, 2007 at 11:03 am
The way expense items are labeled isn’t the problem. For a multitude of reasons, it makes perfect sense for accounting purposes to establish categories or buckets to identify types of expenditures.
The problem is when the contents of these broad categorizations aren’t readily accessible for public scrutiny in a timely manner before a vote is scheduled. It’s a very simple matter to scan these public documents and post them in .pdf format for all to see.
The fact that this simple process isn’t followed doesn’t indicate that a deception is involved. At the same time, it doesn’t allow the public to easily involve themselves in local governance and maintain an accurate awareness of how dollars are being spent.
My suggestion for the new council leadership and for the new mayor is to make these types of fiscal issues transparent and easily accessible via the internet. Open the doors to public awareness, maintain an accurate public perception of council activities, and work towards minimizing future circumstances where citizens question the integrity or intent of council actions.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I agree with Shorebreak.