As we all know, this is budget development time for the Village of Seneca Falls. In an earlier post I spoke about the lack of detail in budgets prepared under the current administration compared to previous administrations. What I said was that the current administration's budgets have abandoned the specific details in favor of grouping costs under accounts. This provides a total for an account, but does not break out sub-accounts.
I used as an example the Clerk/Treasurer's departmental accounts. I pointed out that in the 2003-04 budget (Costantino administration) the departmental accounts are listed individually with dollar amounts assigned to specific cost categories and items. The public could see what the Clerk/Treasurer expected to spend on items in those accounts.
In the 2004-05 budget the same amount of detail was provided for this department.
As we see in the 2005-06 budget, the first budget prepared by Mayor Smith as Budget Officer, the same Clerk/Treasurer’s department accounts are all
grouped under one account number and only a total for all the cost categories is provided.There was no longer a way to determine from Mayor Smith’s budget exactly how much was proposed to be
spent on items like mileage, office supplies, postage, and consulting fees, for example, items that previously were specifically detailed.We see it again in 2006-07. As I noted in my previous post, the total for these specific Clerk/Treasurer departmental expenses increased to $66,288. What categories in that department increased the total by $22,588 over 2005-06? Without the specific line item numbers there was no way to tell.
Finally, the 2007-08 budget again provides only a grouped total for these costs... with another $6,450 increase, but for what?
These are just examples of this new style of veiling costs instead of being open and specific. All other departments are treated the same way in Mayor Smith's budgets - no specific items as before, but only grouped totals for each account. The question is, why provide the public with less information rather than more?Everyone wants elected officials to control costs, but the key is to do so responsibly. Responsible cost cutting requires details, and it is the public's right to have the same access to the specific details as the Board members. Why not put them in the proposed budget so we can see them?
Too often we have been told by Mayor Smith and Board members that the Board is "on board" with the budget so workshops or other public discussion among Board members is unnecessary. While a "public hearing" is required and is held each year, without details how can the public decide whether they do or do not support the budget proposal, or whether they want to ask questions at the hearing?
As I have said, this is not a "best practice" for Seneca Falls. We must do better at providing information. We must not be afraid to let the sun shine on village operations. We cannot confidently reduce costs without detailed information.
