By Adam Pagnucco.
In Part One, I related my experience when working at the county council of how hard it was to steer extra spending through the regular budget process. Folks, it was TOUGH because everything I wanted had to compete with what every other council office wanted and the pot of money was limited. One vehicle for going outside the process – special appropriations – was reserved for emergencies and there was immense peer pressure among council members and staff to avoid using it. I never dreamed of going there, but times change.
At the council’s January 24 meeting, Council President Evan Glass summarized the council’s use of special appropriations over the years in a statement to his colleagues. I will quote him:
In 2014, there were only 2 special appropriations approved – totaling $5.1 million.
In 2015, there were 11, totaling $41.4 million.
In 2018, there were 21, totaling $27.4 million.
In 2020, there were 77 passed, totaling $331 million.
And in 2022, just last year – there were 38 special appropriations approved, totaling $122.5 million.
I could see some of this developing in the fall of 2020 as the pandemic was racking up COVID costs, some of which might be covered by federal funds. But Glass’s data makes clear that increased special appropriations began before COVID and they are continuing even after the pandemic has receded. Because they don’t go through the regular budget process, they don’t have to be paid with regular revenues – they can be financed with reserves. More than a hundred million dollars outside of the budget, folks! It’s not about COVID. It’s about a breakdown of fiscal discipline.
In recent months, this has become a bone of contention at the council. Here is the problem: given the political culture of progressive Democrats, it’s very hard for them to vote against spending – ANY spending – in open session. That’s constrained by a fixed-sum budget process, but when folks stop sticking to that, it’s open season on the reserve. And that destroys the very concept of a balanced budget.
The issue came to a head in November, when Glass introduced an amendment to the council’s rules of procedure stating, “Before the introduction of a special appropriation, a resolution must have a sponsor and the support of 2 or more Councilmembers to introduce a special appropriation.” This would not have stopped special appropriations entirely, but it did somewhat limit the ability of a single council member to shame colleagues into voting for new and random spending at any time.
Glass’s rule change passed on a 5-3 vote. Voting in favor were Glass, Gabe Albornoz, Andrew Friedson, Sidney Katz and Hans Riemer. Voting against were Will Jawando, Nancy Navarro and Craig Rice. Tom Hucker was absent.
Jawando, the only opponent of the measure who returned to the new council, did not forget the issue. At the new council’s first meeting in December, he said the following:
And I think just two weeks ago, or a week and a half, it’s all running together, we had a discussion about our council rules and procedures, which were passed out this morning. And one of the proposals was to remove the authority of an individual council member to introduce a special appropriation if they see a need in the community and that you would be required to have four council members to do so, something that has never existed. There was debate and discussion in the previous council and it was removed and lowered to three council members. I think that’s something we need to revisit. If I, for example, as the first African immigrant council member, or anyone who has a unique insight into an individual need in our community wants to put forward a special appropriation they have to behind-the-scenes, out of public view ask for permission to even introduce an item and have it discussed. I think it’s another example of the trend unfortunately that I have seen over the last four years that we need to reverse of removing conversations from public view and putting them in the back room which is where transparency and democracy goes to die.
Accordingly, Jawando and Council Member Laurie-Anne Sayles introduced the following rules change to revert special appropriation introduction authority to one council member on January 24:
Introduction of Special Appropriations
Any Councilmember may introduce a special appropriation. If the President or a majority of the Council refuse to schedule the introduction, the Councilmember may give the President at least 2 weeks’ written notice of the Councilmember’s intention to introduce the special appropriation. After notice, introduction must be allowed. Neither the consent of the President, nor a motion to amend the agenda is required.
In the end, Jawando, Sayles and Council Member Kristin Mink voted in favor of allowing one council member to introduce a special appropriation. All eight other council members voted against it. That might seem like a defeat, but here’s the rub – the standard of introduction under existing council rules is three council members, so Jawando, Sayles and Mink could informally agree to co-sponsor each other’s introduction of special appropriations, thereby greasing the wheels of infinite spending.
And that’s what I anticipate. Right now, the nickname for the Jawando, Sayles and Mink grouping is “the Squad,” echoing the nickname of the super-progressive faction in the U.S. House of Representatives led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. All they have to do is stick together and the council may very well continue spending tens of millions of dollars a year – and maybe more – from reserves.
So I return to the title of this post – should we have a balanced budget? If your answer is yes, then we should have guardrails to make sure that spending matches revenues. If not, well, I hope you can afford a massive tax hike, because in the end that’s what you are going to get!