Wednesday, May 31, 2006
A Better Plan for City Council
The debate continues over City Council’s discretionary spending problems. After ethical questions arose in light of Councilwoman Carlisle’s spending on consultants—nearly $178,000 since 2002—Council has sought to solve the problem with more “stringent” rules on spending. But why have individual discretionary accounts at all?
Currently members of City Council are allocated $85,000 per year, down from $99,000 in 2002, to spend as they see fit with most spent on staff salaries. A proposal has been given preliminary approval that would require most of that money ($77,000) be spent on staff salaries without being able to shift this money to an expense account ($8,000). Furthermore any consultants being paid more than $10,000 would have to sign contracts and provide detailed evidence of work performed. Any requests for travel, education, training, or professional services would have to be approved by the council president.
Here’s a better idea: eliminate any slush fund spending by individual council members. If the money is to be used for the betterment of their districts, as some members claim, then pool the money and bring any spending ideas before the full council for a vote. If the idea is worthy of funding, it should easily pass council as well as public scrutiny. Complete expense reports should be submitted and audits performed every quarter. This eliminates any hidden agendas, or spending on friends and political allies. Complete transparency is not only demanded of the City’s elected officials, but deserved by its citizens.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06151/694515-100.stm
Currently members of City Council are allocated $85,000 per year, down from $99,000 in 2002, to spend as they see fit with most spent on staff salaries. A proposal has been given preliminary approval that would require most of that money ($77,000) be spent on staff salaries without being able to shift this money to an expense account ($8,000). Furthermore any consultants being paid more than $10,000 would have to sign contracts and provide detailed evidence of work performed. Any requests for travel, education, training, or professional services would have to be approved by the council president.
Here’s a better idea: eliminate any slush fund spending by individual council members. If the money is to be used for the betterment of their districts, as some members claim, then pool the money and bring any spending ideas before the full council for a vote. If the idea is worthy of funding, it should easily pass council as well as public scrutiny. Complete expense reports should be submitted and audits performed every quarter. This eliminates any hidden agendas, or spending on friends and political allies. Complete transparency is not only demanded of the City’s elected officials, but deserved by its citizens.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06151/694515-100.stm
