HOW WE SEE IT

Budget Scrutiny A Valuable Part Of Government

When it comes to reporting on government, reporters know it’s challenging for many readers to get excited about budget stories.

After a while, all the talk by city councils, quorum courts and school boards sound the same, with numbers so large to most of us it’s diff cult to appreciate the importance of what’s happening.

So why do newspapers write about it? Because in the world of government, if you don’t budget money for a project or program, it’s really not that important. Don’t look at what the politicians say, but what they allocate money for.

Government leaders know this, and they also sometimes count on the public’s lack of interest in budgeting to give them the wiggle room to do whatever they please without much scrutiny. And,of course, we believe scrutiny is a healthy thing for government.

We’re encouraged by what we’re seeing from the quorum courts in both Benton and Washington counties: more scrutiny ofthe budgets submitted by full-time elected off cials.

Here’s an example of what we’re talking about: Justices of the peace found $780,000 to cut in two 2013 budget requests from Washington County Judge Marilyn Edwards. In 2011, Edwards returned $1.6 million in unspent cash to the county’s reserve from her 16 separate budgets, which may sound like great money management. People who make budgets regularly know it means excessive spending authority.

“The way I look at it is if we’re getting a million dollars back some people aren’t doing a good job of budgeting. Let’s get down to actual dollars and cents,” Benton County Justice of the Peace Dan Douglas recently said about his county’s budget process. The Quorum Court there is putting budgets through higher scrutiny, too.

Back to our example: The Quorum Court members focused attention on Edwards’ $1 million request for parts and repair for 2013. The county spent $89,887 in that category in 2011 and had spent $114,504 through mid-October of this year.

The reason given for the massive overbudgeting: Emergencies and other unforeseen expenses.

OK. We get it. Who wouldn’t want an extra $900,000 of wiggle room in a budget?

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, the $900,000 is needed in 2013. In the overbudgeting scenario submitted by Edwards, the county judge gains full spending authority over that money. Yes, it might be needed for emergencies, but only Edwards is making a judgment about what constitutes an emergency. A new vehicle?

New chip-and-seal equipment? Replacing a roof?

The public is better served by a transparent process in which budgeted money is spent on what it’s intended for and unanticipated expenses are sought from reserves controlled by the Quorum Court. In Arkansas government, that’s a process that provides checks and balances on executive power.

In reviewing two other county departments - the sherift and the coroner - members of the Quorum Court discovered funding requests in which the two offceholders padded food budgets with money they fully anticipated spending on other things. In the case of the sherift, he wanted it as emergency cash for necessary inmate medical care. In the coroner’s situation, it was money for vehicle tires.

Our question: Why not just budget that money for what they intended to spend it on? It’s not like either was proposing a hot tub and a lifetime subscription to Omaha Steaks. These were legitimate potential county expenditures, so why hide them?

Taxpayers deserve a clear process by which expenditures are accurately identified and their elected representatives charged with holding the purse strings - the Quorum Court - are making sure they know where the money is going.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 11/13/2012

Upcoming Events