Budget numbers require a close look
Spokane Mayor Jim West has no enviable task Monday night when he’s scheduled to stand before the City Council and talk about a 2005 budget proposal that could leave city government lighter by up to 142 positions.
We know there are those who celebrate the idea of City Hall or any seat of government jettisoning some of its payroll. But it’s hard to imagine that any but the most jaded government haters would feel good about the reductions in legitimate public services that appear to be in store for Spokane.
Public safety stands out as a glaring example. Sixty-three firefighter positions could be lost, as could 17 police officer positions. The two departments would lose additional non-uniformed personnel, and other popular municipal programs such as parks and libraries would experience significant cuts, too.
On top of that, the exits will include a number of people who do the unseen, nuts-and-bolts work of keeping a city in business – purchasing, engineering and the like. It’s going to be, as West has said, a different city on Jan. 1.
Still, if you’re looking for a glimmer of hope, Chief Financial Officer Gavin Cooley declared in his executive summary of the proposal: “While we will clearly struggle with the loss of personnel and services, I do believe this budget puts the city firmly on the road to financial recovery and strength.”
The mayor’s presentation launches a monthlong examination by the City Council, which ultimately must produce a final budget. A series of public hearings is scheduled at the regular Monday council meetings on Nov. 15 through Dec. 6. During those sessions, the spending plan will be broken down and examined spending priority by spending priority.
Council members have said they will be asking the mayor and his staff how they came to their conclusions. Well they should. The city’s strong mayor form of government separates the administrative and legislative functions and imposes an expectation of checks and balances. The mayor’s budget proposal, however sincerely crafted, requires the vigorous challenge that only a separate and independent set of eyes can provide. Trouble is, the council lacks the staff resources to do the kind of examination called for under such a system.
The harsh irony, of course, is that it’s out of the question to even think of writing such an expenditure into the budget. At some prosperous time in the future, perhaps, that can be remedied.
For now, council members will have to satisfy themselves by asking questions of and relying on answers from the same branch of city government that produced the document being examined. Citizens will have their own opportunity to weigh in during the forthcoming hearings, but it’s the council, as the people’s elected representatives, who have a special burden for now to assure the 2005 budget has been thoroughly and meticulously scrutinized.