In the midst of city elections, the role and relevance of the Boston City Council has come under attack. The criticism comes not only from the press but also, if judged by its indifference in the recent preliminary elections, from the electorate.

Is the Council a relevant institution to the governance of Boston? Can it function independently from the Administration? Can it develop its own vision and agenda for Boston?

I believe the answer is yes. But over the last two years the Council has failed to achieve its potential. Beset by internal bickering and strife, politics within the body is frequently characterized by backroom maneuvering for power and position. The Council has been ineffectual in its review of the annual budget. It reacts to issues rather than addressing them proactively. There is a sense of anomie as individual members drift from issue to issue with no focus on developing concrete and consistent policies.

Can the Council be fixed? Absolutely. Here are a few ideas how.

A Council agenda. The members of the Council should develop and agree upon a focused and specific set of items that they would like to see accomplished in the coming year. Other cities, such as Seattle, have done this, with their councils publicly announcing their annual policy goals.

How about, for example, developing a plan to reform the delivery of city services to neighborhoods so that services are delivered not in reaction to complaints but rather systematically based upon the unique needs of each neighborhood? How about developing a mechanism to incorporate environmental and public health concerns early on in city decision-making? How about changing the student assignment plan to provide parents with more control? How about developing a specific plan to help elderly residents most affected by the end of rent control? How about a one-stop permitting process for businesses that reduces paperwork while providing for greater citizen participation?

Developing such an agenda requires the participation of all councilors and, most critically, their agreement to stick together through the year in following through on their promises. The result is a clear and measurable yardstick of what the Council accomplishes.

Reforming the budget process. The City’s annual budget is now $1.5 billion. Review and approval of each year’s budget is perhaps the Council’s most important function and the greatest source of its authority.

Each April, the Council receives the Administration’s proposed budget. This year two committees, Ways & Means and Education, held 63 hearings devoted to reviewing every line item. The process was less exhaustive than exhausting, so wearing that at many hearings only the chair of the committee attended.

Impressed? Don’t be. After all of those hearings, the $444 million education budget passed unchanged. The only change the Council advocated for the remainder of the budget was a $77,000 item adding additional police classes.

The chairs of the two committees involved worked enormously hard. So what happened? The problem is with the Council and the budget review process itself.

The effectiveness of the Council’s review should not be measured by the number of hearings held; 100 hearings next year would not improve the budget process. Indeed, the marathon hearing schedule undermines effective budget review. We should hold far fewer hearings and use those hearings as an opportunity to examine a few programmatic areas in depth. We should stop concentrating only on inputs (how much is being spent?) and instead examine outputs (what are we getting with the money we are spending?).

Councilors should not be accountants, double checking the budget office’s math. Instead, using the budget as a guide, we need to ask: What are our priorities? Does the budget reflect those priorities? When we spend money, are we spending it efficiently? Are there other ways to accomplish the same objectives?

Taking the Council out of the shadows. Little substantive news about the Council appears in the press. Sometimes it seems as if the Council’s principal purpose is to serve as grist for the gossip mills. The reputation of the Council is poor.

Much of that is the Council’s fault. Too frequently, the Council conducts its business out of public view. The body itself has become balkanized, characterized by gossip and sniping. Little effort is made to reach out and include all members in decision-making.

Part of the solution is internal to the Council. The Council needs to make itself more open. Issues need to be debated on the Council floor, not behind closed doors.

But the other part of the solution is for the Council itself to become substantive.

In many ways, Boston is a lucky city. The city’s economy is booming. Mayor Thomas Menino has brought energy to his job and a resolve to address nagging problems such as the financing and operation of Boston City Hospital or improving the city’s public school system.

But there are still deep rooted problems throughout our city. Our citizens feel unsafe. The elderly and the poor live precariously. Even those with jobs have little sense of security about their futures. Our schools continue to fail our youngest generation. The future of the city—its cultural, economic, and intellectual roles in the region, its relationship to the suburbs around it, its role as a residential center and a starting point for new immigrants—is uncertain.

Certainly there is a role for the Council in all of this. The members of the Council are individually talented, representing unique and different perspectives on the city and its residents. Much of that talent is wasted, however. It shouldn’t be. The Council deserves better. Boston deserves better.