So, after spending the equivalent of two work days blogging the City Council budget deliberations and 5 long blog posts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), I didn’t have time to say what I thought of the budget process . . . and then it seemed it was too late, but I’m still thinking about it, so I’m blogging it now.
Best Public Testimony goes to . . . Danielle Bailey, her testimony was clear and simple and got stuck in your head. Invest in community, not in policing. If you were watching, you couldn’t help but remember it.
CAPITAL BUDGET – NIGHT ONE
Perhaps the worst prepared for budget amendment was Alder McKinney who was trying to get half a million dollars to add a community room to Griff’s (Amendment 1). Sad part is, she might be right, this space might be needed, it was just very hard to tell. And not having that Neighborhood Study done yet (will it ever be done) didn’t help. Alders are saying this was poorly planned from the beginning and that was the problem. This was the first time the mayor spoke in the council vs. mayor wars. Matt Phair and the Mayor disagreed on the history of things and how this all came to be. In the end, it was unclear about if this center is for jobs or community space and what the real need is. It’s fair to say, no one agreed on much and the amendment didn’t pass.
On the Public Market Amendment (#2) discussion, one of my favorite moments where after several alders complained that they hadn’t had enough input and said they couldn’t figure out why the public thinks this project is moving forward (even after the many resolutions they passed and the budget amendments they made last year) and continued to complain that they didn’t know what was going on . . . Alder Rummel pulls out a report THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED that has most of the answers to the questions that they have been wringing their hands over. Which had been explained to them, but the council was just kind of oblivious to it. It’s like they no longer read what they are voting on.
Mystery of the night, why was Sheri Carter talking about saddle shoes? (Amendment 2)
A Developing Theme: Alders who don’t read the things they vote on throughout the year and then seem surprised at budget time. The Madison Municipal Building Amendment (#5) was a classic. Jeanne Hoffman did an excellent smack down by going over the history and bringing up power point presentations that they had all seen that had the answers to questions they were asking. Matt Phair admits he “vaguely remembers” it – he’s one of the authors of it – and advocates for privatization of the building. Rummel calls it the “perfect storm of things we didn’t deal with.” Eskrich feigns surprise and says she is just trying to be “fiscally responsible” which is a huge joke because to stop now after the city staff have spent 100s if not 1000s of hours getting ready to move and we already have signed leases is pretty far from fiscal responsibility. She seems to want to find a compromise, but has none to offer.
Another Developing Theme: I just put this amendment in so we can talk about our priorities. Alder Clear and Eskrich seemed to be the ones that were most into this theme of the evening. The issue I have with this is that they want to keep the council meetings short and the culture is not to pull things off the council agenda for discussion “at the last minute” at the council meeting. But THAT IS THE TIME TO DISCUSS PRIORITIES! If you think something is a bad idea when you are passing it . . . then speak up and vote no!! Don’t wait until budget night and say – oops I didn’t really mean that, can we talk about it now. Especially since budget night isn’t a real great time to discuss things when people work all day and spend another full workday in a meeting until the wee hours. This is almost the WORST time to start talking about their priorities. If the council were doing their job, they’d be discussion their priorities all year long and they would be clear and you’d have budgets that reflected that work.
One More Developing Theme: Elections on my mind. One of the clearer moments on this theme is when DeMarb got really testy with Jeanne Hoffman demanding that Jeanne prove to her that they can’t buy another site and build the Madison Municipal Building for 1/2 the cost elsewhere, because that is all her constituents are going to hear.
Most shockingly screwed up amendment of the budget, Fire Station 14 (Amendment 14). Yikes! For a former council president who took a “deep dive” into the budget and for whom claims that this fire station is one of the most important things in her district, she whiffed on this one. She ended up withdrawing the amendment because she didn’t even know that the design drawing had not been done and even with the money in the budget it wouldn’t get done. Embarrassing. How did she not know this if she was working so hard on it?
I think Ahrens was right on this one – Pinney Library. Cocky attitude aside, he had a good point and the Alders agreed. Again tho, why wait til budget time to do this, it could have been done by resolution and by talking to the library board.
Most Ridiculous Amendment goes to Alder Eskrich on the TID 32 expenditures (#12). She just didn’t think this through. First of all – she made the amendment to “bring this to people’s attention”. Another one of those, lets just discuss this moments. I think she hit the trifecta on this one: 1) Not reading things and doing her job throughout the year. 2) Introducing an amendment so they can talk about things and 3) Elections on her mind. Once again, Rummel nails it when she points out to Eskrich that a) she is on the Board of Estimates and they get quarterly TIF updates and that would be the time to bring things up and b) there have been two (or three) TIF policy committees in the 8 years and we have a TIF policy that can be changed if you want changes. It’s like the alders don’t know how to do their jobs. Or, election silly season started extra early this year.
Did they really discuss body cameras again? (#16) Why yes, yes they did. The police department put in $75,000 for a pilot. At Board of Estimates they had an amendment that allowed the body cameras to go forward only if a resolution passes the council. This amendment to take it out completely passed on a voice vote.
This year’s nay-sayers After 8.5 hours of meeting, Alders Ahrens, Eskrich and Carter voted against the capital budget. I have to say, I might have too had I been in their seats, but for very different reasons. (ahem, Midtown Station, Judge Doyle Square, etc)
OPERATING BUDGET
Anti-public information amendment? (#1) This amendment upgrades the Municode software we have – which is the system where our ordinances are made public. Apparently, Alders Matt Phair and Mo Cheeks think the public doesn’t need to know what our ordinances say? And Mark Clear had to be the one to say that this is about access to our government. Dear lord. Mo Cheeks thanks his colleagues for weighing in and says that he brought it up because it was important that we acknowledge we are making this investment. What? Samba Baldeh asked the most relevant question. What version do we have now and what will the upgrade do? Sounds like it could be a real time saver for the staff.
Another poorly thought out amendment (#3) Alder Palm and McKinney want $35,000 for alder mailings, and yet, the current money in the budget doesn’t get spent. Hmmmmm.
Hypocrisy Amendments (#4 & #10) After all the talk about projects being half baked and not ready for prime time and whatever other cliche you want to use, this might have been the least ready amendment . . . what the funding was for was radically changed on the fly on the floor. . . and maybe one of the more interesting one in that McKinney and Carter – the two African American women – were kinda opposed to the men’s plan and felt that it should be reduced from $400,000 to $250,000.
Do you even know what you want Amendment? (#11) Mo Cheeks put in an amendment to cut $90,000 for an HR study that it seems he supported and wanted to increase funding for? Honestly, I still don’t get it. A great lesson in how not to get things done. And in this case it was about hiring a diverse workforce after the scathing report that was done where city employees said what they really think about working for the city. Seriously? The funding for the study was taken out of the budget.
This is just getting silly now . . . (#12) Trying to cut $50,000 to review the short term and long term disability plans that haven’t been reviewed in 30 years.
Getting even with the mayor It seems like the operating budget just turned into a war against the mayor at some point – with no real reason except they don’t like the mayor . . . and people voting against the best interests of the city out of spite. It wasn’t pretty, you can read the rest. It just got sad at some point. The mayor call them on it in amendment 13 . . . and the rather uncivil night got worse.
Most unbelievable comment of the budget session “I like bus wraps, its built in shade and its glamorous.” That was actually said by Amanda Hall. They were too worn out to argue at this point, but dang . . . screw the visually impaired, I guess, its all about the money.
GENERAL COMMENT
This new budget format sucks. On several occasions I witnessed department heads who thought things they put in their budget were in the budget only to find out they were not. How does that happen? When I testified that the budget documents were impossible to follow as members of the public – a VERY well informed and experienced staff person said to me – “we can’t follow it either”. When I tried asking some alders questions about the budget, I got ALOT of should shrugs and promises to look into it. (Meaning they had to email staff to ask them, who probably had to email finance to ask them, and then get back to me. Not a model of efficiency or transparency.)
After 6 years, get over it.You know, I’m not a huge fan of the mayor, but its time for the council to grow up, act like adults and stop the playground feuds. The City of Madison deserves better than this. I actually had an alder say to me recently that they are afraid to bring things forward if the mayor supports them because it might fail because people will vote against it just to get back at the mayor. This is bad.
Spring elections are coming up . . . nomination papers can be circulated Dec. 1 . . . its about to get even sillier if some of these people end up with opponents.
