Harmonious budget goes light on reform

14 July 2004

It's typical. After weeks of gamesmanship, slammed doors and apocalyptic threats, a divided and bickering City Council finally passes a new budget amid bitter recriminations and vows of political vengeance.

Except this year. This time around, outsiders could be forgiven for thinking the budget process was akin to Sherlock Holmes' curious incident of the dog that didn't bark. What was remarkable was that, unlike most previous years, the process proceeded smoothly and quietly. Councilors received the mayor's proposed budget in April and voted it through on June 30 with just minor changes. An obviously pleased Michael Ross, chair of Ways and Means, brags this was the first time ever that the council unanimously passed a budget. That's even more striking because eight months ago the body was riven by electoral infighting and charges of racism. Yet even the most cantankerous councilors seemed placated this time around.

So what happened? The only other action of note from the council this spring was an ordinance to muzzle pit bulls. Did the council also muzzle itself?

Judging by the numbers, one wonders. The approved budget differed from the mayor's original by a scant $1.4 million - that's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total budget of $1.92 billion. Moreover, half of that amount represented a boost in spending for the city's exam schools, a change the school department had already proposed. Some of the other items seem almost trivial: extra money for crosswalks, a new animal control officer and an additional staffer in inspectional services. Hardly big issues of policy, these seem more like nibbling around the edges.

Some observers faulted the budget review process itself, describing the many hearings as hurried and perfunctory. One councilor says that this year's lack of histrionics was largely due to sympathy for Mayor Thomas Menino. Under intense pressure from labor unions and facing a difficult Democratic National Convention in just a few weeks, Menino is besieged. Rather than add to his woes, councilors gave him a pass.

That may all be true, although it is not necessarily the case that the best measure of the council's effectiveness is the amount of dollars it changes or the length of its hearings (hearings are often the least productive part of the process). The right measure of success is the degree to which councilors are able to impose their own priorities on the budget. Here the record is mixed.

To an extent, the council found itself boxed in by the city's tight fiscal situation, now in its third year. Revenues for the upcoming year increase by $72.4 million over last year. However, as detailed in an analysis by the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, inflationary spending on items such as health insurance, pension and union contracts actually increases by $78.6 million, meaning there is $6.2 million less available to spend on operations. Budget negotiations were thus like a zero-sum game: If councilors wanted to spend more on something, they had to take from something else.

Councilors have resigned themselves somewhat to that grim equation. Still, resignation alone didn't produce this year's quiescence. Rather, councilors say the process itself was better. Some of that was Ross' doing. Much credit also went to the mayor's office, which went out of its way to address councilors' concerns rather than simply shut them out.

Roxbury Councilor Chuck Turner, for example, had two big issues: summer jobs and school building construction. Money wasn't available to solve either. Instead, the mayor's office worked with Turner to put together task forces that would address each topic in the years ahead. From Turner's point of view, that willingness to collaborate was a refreshing change from years before, when he simply felt ignored. Other issues raised by the council - such as the merger of the municipal police with the Boston Police Department or reform of the benefits package afforded the city's EMTs - received similar treatment.

Still, all was not sweetness and light. Behind the scenes, there was some barking over two contentious issues: personnel cuts in the fire department and outsourcing of food services at the public schools. Both were money-saving measures advocated by the mayor. The council, pushed around by city employee unions that saw the reforms as a threat, resisted. Ultimately, the council was able to slow the reforms down and claim a victory of sorts. It's a victory that does not reflect well on the body, however.

How so? Over the next few years, city revenues look to be as tight as they were this year. If the city wants to deliver more in the way of real services to its residents (for example, by improving schools rather than simply giving them level funding) then it must save money elsewhere. It's to those residents, rather than city employees, that the councilors owe their loyalty. Rather than resist, the council needs to help make such reforms happen.