The deed is done. We know the basic shape of the budget from earlier stories, so I just want to highlight a couple of things. First, an amendment to trim Council members’ budgets that ultimately was defeated:
City Councilman Al Hoang and others backed an effort to apply the same 2 percent budget cuts required of many city departments for fiscal 2011 to council members, who have been allocated $392,222 in the coming year to pay staff and take care of other expenses.
The proposal, which would have required a cut of nearly $8,000 per council office, was rejected by 11 council members. Only Hoang, Councilman Stephen Costello and Councilwoman Anne Clutterbuck voted for the measure. The cut would have saved an estimated $110,000.
“I think it’s disingenuous to ask departments to cut their budgets, and not cut our own,” Hoang said in a statement. “We were elected to lead by example, not by decree.”
Councilwoman Jolanda Jones opposed the cuts, saying that council member budgets are used almost exclusively to pay the salaries and health care costs of staffers and should not be compared to departments that can cut spending on equipment or freeze hiring to reach budget targets.
She called the proposal an example of “form over substance.”
“If someone calls my office and I don’t have staff or resources to help them solve their problem, they’re going to be mad at me. … They’re going to be mad at the city,” she said.
I tend to agree with CM Jones that there are better avenues for finding savings. I don’t object to the attempt by CM Hoang, and I do agree that elected officials should lead by example; some, as we know, are better than others at that. But it’s not the Council members themselves who are directly affected by such cuts, it’s their staffers. For the small amount of money in the context of the budget that’s involved, I don’t think the return is worth it.
The other matter of interest was the bilingual budget amendment:
The most controversial item council considered — a proposal to end the practice of paying a $70 monthly stipend to bilingual employees – was withdrawn by Clutterbuck after Parker promised to review the program.
Parker said she will ensure that those receiving the money are proficient in the second language and that the use of it is necessary for their daily jobs. Parker also vowed to ensure that employees only receive tuition reimbursement if the education they seek will help them do their jobs.
My guess is these things will be quietly studied for awhile, then some relatively innocuous recommendations will be made. We’ll see what happens from there.