A guy by the name of Elmer once observed that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself handouts out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result . . . things begin to fall apart because of the loose fiscal policy that inevitably ensues.
So it follows that the process or function of government is wholly dependent upon those in local public office (inarticulate mournful groan).
Consider this in the context of the recently formed Budget Advisory Committee.
A year ago, our Canadian neighbors to the north published a report titled, “How to create a functional, effective, advisory committee.”
The six-page document suggests, “Putting an advisory committee in place can be a good way to involve and engage the community in your organization’s work. However, not all advisory committees are engaged, functional, and effective!”
Isn’t that the truth! (see last week’s letter to the editor: “County Budget Advisory Committee–a perspective”)
The Ontario report asserts, “Advisory committee members can provide valuable experience, expertise and perspectives that add richness and authenticity to the project.”
And lest you believe such wisdom doesn’t exist stateside, the City of Portland adopted guidelines in 2012 that direct the city’s Budget Advisory Committee process. Facilitators maintained, “The budget committee has a unique perspective in that they are privy to all of the financial comings and goings of an organization,” or should be.
Tom Smither, supervisor of Assurance Services, an independent professional service with the goal of improving the quality and context of information so that decision makers can make more informed–and presumably better–decisions, authored an article, “Best Practices for a Finance Committee.”
Smither sets forth, “The purpose of the finance committee is to ensure that the institution is operating in a financially sustainable manner by balancing short-term and long-term obligations and goals.
“Budgets should be reviewed by questioning the underlying financial assumptions of the budget and comparing them to historical data for reasonableness.”
Sounds sensible.
Getting back to our friends in the Pacific Northwest . . .
Portland, Oregon’s City Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) was asked to assess: . The timing of the BAC’s public outreach efforts–was it early enough for members of the community to provide useful and timely input into the budget process? . How effective was the BAC in soliciting input from the diversity that exists among community stakeholders? . The transparency of BAC’s decision-making and consultation with the public? . Usefulness and applicability of the public input to the BAC in developing its proposed budget?
To ensure accountability, the city implemented four evaluation tools: Evaluation Tool No. 1: Observations at BAC Meetings
. Is there a diversity of representation on the BAC? Under-represented communities and stakeholders? Community vs. agency representation and influence?
. How did the bureau receive and record BAC members’ input at the meeting?
. Based on your observations, describe BAC members’ level of understanding regarding budget process and timeline.
. Based on your observations, describe meeting dynamics. Are members able to ask questions throughout the meeting to clarify issues or present their opinions?
. Do members have the opportunity to discuss range of options or bureau proposals?
. Based on your observations, is there diversity and equity of influence between staff and community in meetings?
Evaluation Tool No. 2: Observations at Budget Outreach Events
. Was the meeting facilitated? From a participant’s point of view, was it facilitated well?
. Did bureau staff and/or meeting facilitator explain how participants’ input would be used in making budget decisions? If so, was it presented in a way that participants understood and appreciated their role in the process?
Evaluation Tool No. 3: Interview with BAC Coordinator
. Who evaluates the BAC’s budget process annually? How is it evaluated?
. Will BAC members be invited to evaluate the budget outreach and input process, as well as BAC meetings?
Evaluation Tool No. 4: Interview with BAC Community Representatives
. In your opinion, how applicable, useful and timely is your input in making decisions about the budget?
Concerns typically raised by members of a BAC are:
. How to make the process authentic and meaningful . The decreased level of depth allowed in the budget discussions . How to overcome control of the budget by a small inside group
. How to focus on outcomes and sustainability as opposed to sacred cow programs
. Evaluation and review of the budget process after the budget is adopted
. Share your past experiences of working with the budget process.
. Felt input wouldn’t have impact on decisions that were already made . It’s unclear to the public how their input is used or if it is even effective . Budget documents need to be made accessible even when considered sensitive
Community members have a right to be involved in decisions that affect them. Budget Advisory Committee participants should be allowed to influence decision-making and receive feedback on how their input was used.
Public leaders and staff are accountable for ensuring meaningful public involvement in the work of county government, as meaningful involvement increases the legitimacy and accountability of government decisions.
Respecting and honoring the process gives it legitimacy. Going through the motions for appearances’ sake only serves to further the public’s mistrust.
Process, as I’ve said before, all depends on those in office . . .
Former Cook County Commissioner Garry Gamble is writing this ongoing column about the various ways government works, as well as other topics.
Leave a Reply