New Haven Independent

Panel Calls For Stepped-Up Oversight

by Melissa Bailey | July 2, 2009 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

nhimholahanayor%20005.JPG Aldermen should start paying attention to how the schools spend millions of dollars. And they should tie spending to performance.

Those are two of the “blue-ribbon” suggestions for better budgeting from a citizens panel charged with thinking long-term about New Haven government’s financial woes.

The Blue Ribbon Budget Review Panel was created in October to advise aldermen on the FY09-10 budget. Aldermen approved a budget on May 26, but the panel’s report wasn’t due until June 30, the last day before the fiscal year begins. The group, comprised of seven citizens, two aldermen and three city officials, submitted its final report to aldermen Tuesday: Click here to read it. (Pictured: Tim Holahan, who headed the panel.)

After reviewing the city’s budget for nine months, the panel concluded that aldermen’s job isn’t easy. But they called on them to “demand accountability” from city government, as well as open up the budgeting process to facilitate more citizen participation.

Reached Thursday, aldermanic President Carl Goldfield vowed to get to work on one of the report’s recommendations, performance-based budgeting.

School Reform

Education ranked high on the group’s list of financial challenges for the city, whose budget is heavily reliant on property tax and state aid, in a town with a high percentage of non-taxable land.

“Education is the major area where performance and investment are just wildly out of whack,” said Tim Holahan, who chaired the blue ribbon group.

“We spend more on education than on anything else, yet our students’ performance consistently ranks among the lowest in the state,” the report notes.

Aldermen approved a $464 million general fund budget for next year, including $173 million, or 37 percent of spending, for the schools.

But when you look at total money the city spends, including capital projects (borrowed money) and special funds (grants), education spending is much higher, the panel concluded. Factoring in school construction costs, special funds projects and personnel benefits, the group calculated that the city spends 50 to 60 percent of total expenditures on education.

Panelists recognized aldermen’s limited power in controlling the most major expenses: Aldermen approve school board funding and union contracts solely through an up or down vote.

“Taken together, education spending and other contractual personnel costs represent the overwhelming majority of the money New Haven spends every year, and the Board of Aldermen has virtually no control over how that money is spent,” reads the report.

Holahan said while aldermen may not be able to control the details, they should take on a more active oversight role.

The blue ribbon group called for aldermen to set up an Aldermanic Education Reform Oversight Panel of nine citizens who would give oversight to the school system’s new reform initiative.

“We really ought to see what’s spent on each school, how much is spent per student at each school — these are all key parts of school reform,” said Holahan. “You’ve got to understand where the money’s going, or you can’t understand what you’re getting for what you’re spending.”

He suggested that the school system articulate spending goals and priorities, and report back on progress along those lines.

“We don’t see that approach in government,” especially not in education spending, said Holahan. “There’s no perceived need to change.”

He said there is a big need to change the transparency and oversight of school spending, especially on the verge of a new wave of reforms that may bring a new wave of costs with them.

“We’re not proving that we’re getting the best bang for our bucks” in education, Holahan said. He said he was certain that that view is shared by the citizens on the panel, if not by the aldermen and city budget officials, he said.

The panel included Newhallville Alderman Charles Blango, who’s a truancy officer for the school system. He’s one of three aldermen, along with Michelle Edmonds-Sepulveda and Katrina Jones, who regularly abstain from school-related budget votes because they work for the Board of Ed. (Blango couldn’t be reached for this story.)

“I don’t think a Board of Ed employee can effectively oversee” education funding, said Holahan. He called the conflict “unseemly” but not a major problem.

Reached Thursday, Jones (pictured) was asked if aldermen should take a more active role in overseeing education spending.

“I don’t know if I should comment on it at all, because I am an employee of the Board of Education,” said Jones. “I really should remain neutral.”

“There have been times when I felt that it does sort of put a restraint on me, as far as voicing my opinion as a member of the board,” she conceded.

“It really prevents my ability as a board member to be active in the decisions that concern the Board of Ed,” she said. “But what do you do. You keep saying, I need to abstain.”

Alderman Goldfield pointed out that by charter, aldermen aren’t set up to have line-by-line control of the school board’s budget. The city has a mayorally appointed school board that determines the details of school spending. Aldermen simply vote yes or no to the final budget figure. And state law dictates that the city must fund education to a minimum level, or risk losing funding.

Goldfield did not advocate taking on the extra oversight role.

“We can do that now,” he said. “The Board of Education holds hearings on its budget. They’re open to the public. There’s the opportunity for input.”

“The fact of the matter is that we don’t have line-item discretion over how that money is spent,” he said. “It would be a whole new world for us to take on that role.”

“We try to give our input over how the money’s spent,” he said, “but ultimately they don’t have to listen to our input.”

A Performance-Based Pledge

However, Goldfield was encouraging of another recommendation the panel made, to shift to more transparent method of budgeting.

Holahan endorsed a so-called performance-based, or results-based budgeting that would direct city departments to articulate spending priorities, set goals, and measure achievement according to those goals.

Aldermen resolved to pursue this method in 2007, but the effort never got off the ground.

The idea was to restructuring the way the budget’s written to a format where departmental efficiency becomes more transparent. For example, the parks department budget would be broken down by services, so aldermen could see exactly how much was spent on tree trimming, and how many trees were trimmed, and adjust resources accordingly, instead of just copying the budget from the year before.

Asked about the effort Thursday, Goldfield resolved to get back on the task.

“I have to be honest and say that we probably should get back to it, sit down with [budget director] Larry [Rusconi] and [Controller] Mark [Pietrosimone] and see if we can get back to that type of budgeting,” he said. Part of the problem, said Goldfield, was that that scale of reform seemed huge.

Thursday, Goldfield said he intends to push for initial reforms, starting with restructuring the budgets in a couple departments, such as public works or parks.

“That’s what I’m gong to do,” he said. “It’s time to move forward on this.”

Transparency

To create more accountability, the panel calls for making budget documents easier for citizens to read, and creating a more transparent sign-up process for giving testimony at public hearings.

Goldfield said he welcomes any effort to create more transparency in government.

The panel also recommends that in the next round of contract negotiations, aldermen should push the city to shift from a defined benefit to a defined contribution pension plan for new employees. (Click here to read about some aldermen’s work on the topic).

Aldermen should make it an “urgent priority” to shift ownership of Tweed-New Haven Airport from the city to the state, the Blue Ribbon Group also concludes. Click here for a past story on the group’s views on Tweed.

To empower aldermen at the budgeting table, the group calls for the city to pay for aldermen to attend up to two classes per year in accounting or finance, as well as give aldermen access to outside financial consultants with no connection to the city.

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: The Count | July 2, 2009 11:54 AM

Once again, Tweed Airport is the "whipping boy" in the city's quest for "efficient" government. The irony here is that other jurisdictions have airport projects totaling into the hundreds of millions of dollars while New Haven's Board of Aldermen wrestles with cutting Tweed's operating budget to below $500,000. Not surprisingly, Tweed-hater David Cameron is part of this "blue-ribbon" panel ("pink ribbon" should be more like it). These are the very same people who favor the New Haven-Springfield rail line, a project which the state's own Department of Transportation predicts an operating deficeit of $7 million a year, in the misguided belief that folks will board a train in New Haven and make 8 stops before arriving at the Windsor Locks station to board a shuttle bus to the terminal. There's nothing wrong with Tweed that some navigational fine-tuning (clear approach zones) couldn't solve. A state takeover is NOT the answer.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | July 2, 2009 1:59 PM

As a general observation, the report is an excellent blueprint to reforming the city's nearly worthless budget process. It contains many more recommendations than the few listed here and I suggest citizens and alders read its full analysis and begin the work necessary to make changes. While the school board approves the line items in that budget, the budget process there is as broken and worthless as it is at the BOA.

Count: Tweed is not a whipping boy - it is the dependent who whips taxpayers beating a million dollars a year out of them with threats of failing and falling back in total on taxpayers. But let's be clear, all the changes at Tweed will not solve Tweed's financial problems. The full force of that budget should be levied on the people who use it and who benefit from it. The well heeled, many from the suburbs and the handful from New Haven who can afford to fly out of Tweed should pay for it and quit looking to 99.5% of New Haven taxpayers to subsidize a luxury we ourselves can't use. So, Tweed is not a whipping boy, it's part of the long standing pattern of funding failing or non-performing assets and departments. It simply must stop.

Posted by: The Count | July 2, 2009 3:13 PM

Ah, City Hall Watch, those folks from the suburbs DO pay for Tweed by using it. Even if you reject that claim, let's look at it this way: The suburban folk will pay for Tweed when:
1.) Folks from Massachusetts, Southern Vermont and Eastern Upstate New York contribute to Bradley,
2.) Folks from Eastern Connecticut pay Rhode Island for using T.F. Green,
3.) Folks from Fairfield County pay Westchester County for the use of their airport, and
4.) Folks from Connecticut pay the New York Port Authority for the use of LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports.
No one, BUT NO ONE, blames East Haven for obstructing the necessary improvements for Tweed, or the legal costs incurred over the years.
Finally, I notice this "blue ribbon" panel makes little, if any mention, of cutting public officials' salaries. Where's the outrage THERE?

Posted by: Exiled Italian Shill | July 2, 2009 6:06 PM

Nine months and the group has come up with accountability, transparency and make the state pay for Tweed? I was hoping for so much more from the group.

I especially like the aldermanic education reform oversight panel. Translation: make us permanent and let us make the decisions about public education without any accountability.

Hire third party outside experts to coach aldermen. Translation: bring in the green eyeshade folks to make budget choices for the all residents - because Im sure accountants know what the Hill needs, the Heights needs or what East Rock needs. Everything that is in the budget stems from some constituency group asking for it to be in there because they felt it important for their community/neighborhood. Bringing in someone from the outside to make budget choices for alders is like having an insurance bureaucrat making health care choices for your doctor about your own health.

Posted by: FacChek | July 2, 2009 7:19 PM

Carl Goldfield, who at the start of this alder- manic term, proclaimed he would led a proactive board, and, he who approved the appointments to the Blue Ribbon Commission, and at the same time appointing Blango to the commission, foolishly said the following:

"The fact of the matter is that we don't have line-item discretion over how that money is spent," he said. "It would be a whole new world for us to take on that role."

No Goldfield. the FAC is you do have discretion over the budget, that is provided you via section 58 of the Charter:

The board of aldermen shall consider and act upon such budget so proposed by the mayor. The board of aldermen shall have the power by a majority vote of the entire board to increase and decrease individual lines of appropriations and to decrease the total appropriation and rate of taxation. By a two-thirds vote of the entire board of aldermen, the board of aldermen may increase the total appropriation or increase the rate of taxation as recommended by the mayor.

In a following paragraph above Goldfield said in response to the question of authority over the BOE:

"We can do that now," he said. "The Board of Education holds hearings on its budget. They're open to the public. There's the opportunity for input." "We try to give our input over how the money's spent," he said, "but ultimately they don't have to listen to our input."

Wrong answer again goldfield, the FAC checker has disclosed,
According to section 59 of the charter:

No city department, officer or board of commissioners shall incur any liability or expense by contract or otherwise for which said city shall be responsible in excess of the appropriations so made by said board of aldermen.

So which way is it going to be CARL....
If you were sincere about being proactive, why would you appoint Blango to a citizen commission, charged to consider a budget which the BOE consumes 37% while you knew full well he could not vote or otherwise effect the BOE because of his obvious conflict of interest??

What's up with that ..."???

No, here is the FACs... the board of aldermen are responsible for the spending and taxation, however, under Goldfield and his illustrious predecessors the BOA abdicates it's responsibility to the Mayor, the Mayor sits up a budget styled after Frank Alterie, and unilaterally decides spending and taxation, then allows Goldfield to sell the plan to the finance committee, and to the full BOA.

The reason the budget is difficult to read, follow and understand is due to the dizzying format developed by Alterie, inherited and continued by Resconie.

Factoid II:

The Finance committee and the BOA, both controlled by Goldfield, have every opportunity to influence the budget after passage.

Before the ink is dry on the passed budget, many if not all, city department soon after, appear before the finance committee seeking budget line-item changes, these line-item changes are approved with very little debate or resistance.

The changes for the BOE especially, are approved, even changes in the line -item: over time, currently @2M is approved by the committee with a wink.

What the hell is that about....?

I could write on, but, take leave to allow you to figure out, what's wrong with the budget process!!!

Posted by: aaron | July 3, 2009 12:04 AM

Whatever you think of their recommendations, Tim et al. should be commended for putting in a lot of hard work with absolutely no compensation or reward except a sense of accomplishment in helping out a city that they care about. Bravo. I wish there were more citizens like them.

Posted by: stopthelibs | July 6, 2009 10:38 AM

I would like to add my aplause tot he work done (for free) by this panel. I highly suggest that anyone concerned about the fiscal future of our city read the report carefully.

It is clear the out of control sepnding is the #1 danger to our future. We must find ways to reign in expenses on our services, our employees, our pensions...etc. This is not sustainable and the time for action is now.

Although those on the left view overpaying unskilled workers as kindness, this is very short sighted and will lead to legacy costs that we will eventually be unable to support.

Let's demand action action before we end up like California.

Posted by: steve | July 6, 2009 12:31 PM

The progress that new haven and east haven have made on resolving the tweed airport issue is a mile stone.While I would like to have a plan to pave 400 feet of the southern overrun to compensate for the steep approach to runway 20,having a full 5600 feet to operate out of is a great improvement.The key west airport with a 4700 foot runway has rj service to charlotte,nc and atlanta,ga. At times though there are weight restrictions on departing flights.If us airways can be persuaded to offer service to charlotte with a 70 seat rj,this would offer area travelers many more options to southern destinations.

With 5 to 7 new flights to hub airports,tweed can be self sustaining and benefit the entire region.

My wife flies in and out of tweed 4-5 times a year to visit relatives and this saves much time as opposed to using bradley which is almost in massachusetts.

I hope the cooperation between new haven and east haven on the tweed airport will continue and as such safety will be greatly enhanced.

Posted by: anon | July 6, 2009 6:11 PM

I agree with Steve. I also disagree with some of the public assertions that "99.5%" of New Haven residents do not benefit from Tweed. The ridership figures seem to indicate a higher percentage of New Haveners using the airport, not to mention the thousands of local workers employed by businesses whose executives use it regularly. The airport should be expanded ASAP so that 4-7 new destinations can be brought in. There are regions less than 1/10th the size of New Haven that have 4-7 air connections.

Chris Dodd's proposed New Haven-Springfield high speed rail service is at least 10 years away, and even then travel to Bradley wouldn't be nearly as convenient for the roughly 2 million people living closer to Tweed than to any other airport.

Panel Calls For Stepped-Up Oversight

Comments

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed