OIG Report on Budget Processes (Updated)

I've been looking forward to this report for a long time. The way we do our budget is a major source of frustration and a major impediment to some of the easier changes we'd like to see.

Last year's budget battle was awful for every single member of City Council. I'm not sure there is enough time before this year's negotiation but hopefully this report will stiffen the Council's resolve on items where there is common ground.


OIG Report on Mayors Budget

I'll be updating this post with different noteworthy items that I might find as I read through this. You should feel free to do so yourself in the comment section below.


UPDATE:

We've also learned that the city budget is now $68 million in the red, not the $43 million originally estimated.

I have a hunch that we will see the deficit go up again before the next budget is signed, perhaps to close to $100 million.

As it stands right now, the deficit represents almost 15% of the budget.

The Mayor is talking about across-the-board cuts, which as the Times-Picayune points out, is specifically criticized as a poor methodology. The report talks about what is known as 'budgeting for outcomes,' a system that forces a more critical look at what programs actually address municipal priorities and which do not.

I don't really want to talk about boring stuff like budgeting for outcomes but I do want to talk about municipal priorities. That's what immediately jumps out if you page through the OIG review of 2009's budget processes.

If you start at page 27 above and look at where New Orleans ranks on different spending priorities, it will really begin to crystallize.

One of the thing that frustrates me about discourse in this city is that criticism of municipal inefficiencies is too often translated into the language of Jefferson Parish conservatism. The stereotypical impulse to cut taxes and spending as a matter of reactionary opposition to post 1960s political gains has obscured the voices of those who are more-or-less interested in maintaining spending so long as that revenue goes toward programs that extend opportunity and improve quality of life.

It should be really simple to cut waste from the Dept. of Sanitation to shift additional resources to NORD. But it isn't simple here. It is extremely complicated.

I hope that if we can start by producing accessible and accurate budget documents, we'll soon be able to actually discuss whether or not budgets are actually addressing the needs of the city.

Council can win this much for us. This year.

Budget Negotations and Council Effectiveness Overall

I have fallen so far behind in my writing that today I'm going to bring up a T-P article that appeared in last Saturday's paper. I thought it was so important that I packed it up and brought it with me when I moved.

N.O. budget methods slammed in report

The report, sent Thursday to Mayor Ray Nagin and City Council members, said the way Nagin's team, like previous administrations, creates and presents the budget "has been anything but inclusive and has provided no opportunity for outside input" until after the document is revealed. At that point, there's usually only a month left before the council's Dec. 1 deadline to vote on it.

Odom said the recommendations in the report could be implemented before the 2010 budget, the last one Nagin will present, is prepared and debated.

--

The report notes that since 2007 the administration "purports to have adopted" a process known as "budgeting for outcomes," which "is intended to promote transparency, accountability and inclusion in the budget process."

However, it says, even though that process calls for involving a broad spectrum of "stakeholders, including citizens, community leaders and council members, in establishing the city's budget priorities," the city's actual procedures "offer no effective opportunities for discussion" until after the mayor unveils his proposals.

The lack of outside participation, especially by council members, in preparing the mayor's 2009 budget "became evident in the struggle that ensued after the mayor submitted" his proposals on Oct. 28, the report says.

As a result, the report says, "all the extensive planning work that had gone into prioritizing programs through the 'budgeting for outcomes' ranking system went out the door when the final spending decisions were made."

This year, the report says, the administration should make "a meaningful effort to involve citizens" in setting priorities, and above all it should involve the council at each step of the process.

-

It also says the council should start assessing the performance of key departments and the revenue outlook for 2010 months before it receives the final budget recommendations.

I am very thankful for this report. If you followed last year's budget "negotiations" even a little bit you saw what I witnessed actually sitting in Council chambers. That process made an absolute mockery of municipal government. Poor Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, Chair of the budget committee, looked like she was going to hang herself by the end of that process. The way it worked was that the Mayor proposed a budget and then Council had about ten or twenty working days to analyze that spending via the testimony of different department heads before they were more-or-less expected to provide a rubber stamp.

It is the Mayor's job to prepare and propose a budget. That's all fine and dandy and shouldn't change just because this Mayor isn't particularly good at it. The problem with the process was Council's inability to effectively vet the various proposals. Though one issue is that the Council only has about a month to look it over, it would appear to me that simply moving forward the Mayor's submission deadline to give Council more time doesn't do enough to address the meat of the matter.

Council needs to be able to get deeper into the progress of city departments over the course of the year. If Council is performing quarterly audits of every city department in which they're really getting into the nitty gritty of what we're getting for our money, I haven't noticed. If Council effectively exercised their oversight powers on a regular established schedule, the 3rd Quarter September evaluation would perfectly segue into the budget process and would make the testimony of department heads during those negotiations less hurried and sensational. As it is, the budget hearings appear to be the only forum Council members have to investigate public and private allegations of waste or incompetence from various departments. This is what made this past year's budget negotiations so contentious and counterproductive.

If Council was regularly evaluating department performance, the ineffective budget process we have now wouldn't be nearly as bad because it would be much clearer which programs are working and which are not going into negotiations. Mayors would be less likely to ramrod bad spending into the budget because Council oversight would have already exposed the waste in the preceding months. Reasonably good Mayors, even average Mayors would naturally adopt IG Odom's suggestions of inclusion and discussion in the budget but this Council needed to be more effective in terms of providing public oversight year-round to safeguard against this particular horrible Mayor. That's not to call out this particular Council or the members that comprise it. I imagine that Council has never really established effective oversight systems. I actually think this Council is capable of starting to institute those kinds of reforms. The budget process is a great place to start and I'd like to salute Cynthia Hedge-Morrell for calling on the IG office to supply this initial advice.

I think we citizens are going to need to get real about how much we compensate our Councilors as well. It's a full time job that requires incredible dedication and expertise. But they make peanuts, certainly not enough to support a family unless they're already totally loaded. I think their salaries should double. Immediately. The quality of your choices each election day will be much better. I'm tellin' ya.

More

Nagin spokesman James Ross' response to the IG's report was insulting, off-base, and tone-deaf. I don't think I have a shred of sympathy left for this administration or anyone still associated with it after all this time. They're scorching the earth and salting it for good measure.

James Ross, a Nagin spokesman, said Friday that the administration "has not had an opportunity to read" the 10-page report "and therefore is unable to respond to it with great specificity."

But he said it was "unfortunate that the office of the inspector general has failed to take an opportunity to herald the vision, best practices and commitment of the (administration) to look beyond the challenges of this recovery and implement an open, transparent budget process that this city government has never had before."

Ross said the administration in fact "utilized the information from community meetings hosted by the mayor to serve as guiding points" in creating the 2009 budget. "Hundreds of New Orleans citizens from every walk of life were part of these meetings," he said.

No public announcement of such meetings was made at the time.

Wouldn't a much more effective response be something along the lines of:

"The Mayor's reforms to the budget process were groundbreaking but clearly more work needs to be done. The Mayor has read every page of the report and would like to thank the IG for his suggestions. He will take them under advisement as he makes tweaks for this next and last budget."

But no, Ross couldn't help but dump more gasoline onto already fallow fields.

In Case You Didn't Notice

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the 2010 budget resolution.

Charlie Melancon did the right thing and voted for it even though I'm sure he was getting lots of pressure from his more conservative constituents.

Everybody else from Louisiana voted against it, including the increasingly indefensible Joe Cao.

He's constantly talking about how in the middle he is and how much consideration he's giving to these things but increasingly it seems like he's just blowing smoke. He also voted against the Republican alternative budget (known as the Rep. Ryan April Fool's Joke).

I'd like to know exactly what kind of budget Mr. Cao would prefer.

His nay vote against this budget really ticks me off.

What exactly does Mr. Cao stand for on any national issue of substance? So far, he voted for SCHIP. That's the only matter on which he's actually taken a stand against the embarrassing paramilitary shell of the Republican Party to do something productive for the people in his district.

What is SO objectionable about healthcare reform?

Mary Landrieu, Charlies Melancon, and Anh Cao are mulling over President Obama's budget proposal, which promises to make significant down payment on healthcare reform and sets up a program to control harmful pollution and spur the development of renewable resource technology.

I love this budget proposal. I think it is exactly what the country needs right now.

I need affordable health care options. So do tens of millions of my American neighbors. And our country needs to get off of foreign oil. Our industries and businesses are going to need to adjust to environmental realities.


This is a prudent and moderate proposal that will help this country emerge from this crisis with a stronger social safety net and a robust new green jobs sector.

This budget puts mechanisms in place to do these things. But our Representatives are still sticking their fingers up into the wind.

And guess what?

The people of this nation are in favor of it and this new President's agenda by huge margins.

But they really need to hear it from us. The conservative talk radio crowd makes phone calls and sends letters. We need to our voices to be heard over theirs.


Call 'em up in D.C.

Rep. Melancon: (202) 225-4031

Rep. Cao: (202) 225-6636

Sen. Landrieu: (202)224-5824

We Must Pass Obama's Budget

I supported Barack Obama not just because I thought he could win an election, but because I actually wanted to see his policies and programs put in place. He said what those policies were on the campaign trail and now he's trying to implement them as President. He's keeping his word.

The budget he proposes is extremely ambitious. It sets up the country to finally deliver on some really important things, namely alternative energy and comprehensive healthcare reform.

Green jobs and healthcare coverage that costs us less green.

We need these things, we want these things, we deserve these things. Short term and long term.

But it's not just up to him. This is democracy. It's also up to us.


Right now, right-wing naysayers (who can point to no viable alternative plan) are putting pressure on moderate Democrats to water down the budget bill by stripping it of its most important and prudent provisions.

And we're on the front lines here in Louisiana.

The President needs the support of Representative Charlie Melancon and Senator Mary Landrieu, but both of them are waffling.

We need to put pressure on our elected officials to support the Obama budget.

Republican activists are very good about writing letters and making phone calls. I think that sometimes we don't think that these things don't make a difference. In reality, they do.

It takes very little time to make a phone call.


Rep. Charlie Melancon:

Washington, DC Office 404 Cannon House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515-1807 Phone: (202) 225-4031 Fax: (202) 226-3944
Houma 423 Lafayette St, Ste. 107 Houma, LA 70360 Phone: 985.876.3033 Fax: 985.872.4449	Gonzales 1201 S. Purpera Ave. Ste. 601 Gonzales, LA 70737 Phone: 225.621.8490 Fax: 225.621.8493
Chalmette 8201 W. Judge Perez Dr. Chalmette, LA 70043 Phone: 504.271.1707 Fax: 504.271.1756	New Iberia 124 East Main Street Suite 100 New Iberia, LA 70560 Phone: 337.367.8231 Fax: 337.369.7084

And since he claims to be a closeted Democrat, let's also add Rep. Cao to the list:

Washington Office 2113 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-6636 Fax: (202) 225-1988

.

New Orleans Office 4640 So. Carrollton Ave. Suite 120 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 483-2325 Fax: (504) 483-7944

Sen. Mary Landrieu:

	Washington, DC 328 Hart Senate Building United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Voice: (202)224-5824 Fax:(202) 224-9735 Email Senator Landrieu
New Orleans Hale Boggs Federal Building 500 Poydras Street Room 1005 New Orleans, LA 70130 Voice: (504) 589-2427 Fax:(504) 589-4023		Baton Rouge Room 326, Federal Building 707 Florida Street Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Voice: (225) 389-0395 Fax:(225) 389-0660
Shreveport U.S. Courthouse 300 Fannin Street Room 2240 Shreveport, LA 71101 Voice: (318) 676-3085 Fax:(318) 676-3100		Lake Charles Hibernia Tower One Lakeshore Drive Suite 1260 Lake Charles, LA 70629 Voice: (337) 436-6650 Fax:(337) 439-3762

Just take a moment. Three phone calls a day until this budget is passed.

Mayor Defiant

From the belly of the beast:

STATEMENT FROM MAYOR C. RAY NAGIN


"Today's veto override had little to no effect. In fact, it brought us
back to December 1. It did not improve the financial conditions of the
city.


"We still intend to implement the cuts I announced last week. The Mayor
still holds the checkbook and signs all contracts and CEAs. No third
party will receive any funds unless they are approved by the Mayor.


"There also is a new reality today as a result of the Council's proposed
deeper cuts. These cuts will definitely have a severely negative impact
on residents throughout the city. I believe all citizens deserve
adequate services based upon available resources. It is unfair to
sacrifice the basic services of most citizens while providing enhanced
or extra services to one segment of the city.


"Also, with these deep cuts and the inability to finalize the budget
until sometime in January, we will not be able to encumber service
contracts on January 1, which could further impact our ability to
provide needed services.


"Finally, the City Council's cuts to the budgets for fleet purchases and
fuel have the potential to negatively impact public safety. With those
cuts, we would be unable to replace vehicles in the police department
and other public safety agencies. There also would be insufficient fuel
to supply public safety vehicles for the year."


C. Ray Nagin

Mayor

The Mayor has decided to take an extremely defiant stance. It's one thing to communicate your intention to be flexible with executive spending in order to navigate the larger economic climate, but he's not doing that.

Instead, the Mayor is doing three things:

1. Asserting his authority.

I think he's a little bit over the top in his tone, as stated above.

2. Fortifying a communications posture

By claiming that Council's budget seeks to impose "deep cuts" on services, the Mayor is attempting to make his budget, the one that imposes a citywide 2.5% budget cut and deprives the public defender and district attorney, the budget of social justice. Council gave him a millimeter of room to make this argument because they've advocated for the restoration of full French Quarter sanitation services. This allows him to make some sort of populist appeal about rich people getting lemon scent sprayed upon them. The problem here is that I'm not sure that Council made any kind of recommendation that the Mayor fully execute the SDT contract at the expense of anything else. I think it is pretty clear that the Mayor's budget makes painful cuts across the board to every section of this city, whereas the Council budget attempts to eliminate those cuts. Plus it's not like people give the Mayor the benefit of the doubt on anything, so I'm not sure what the intention here is.

If I were on the Mayor's communications team, this whole thing would be couched as something that needed to be done because of the financial crisis. He might be able to get away with a reasoned argument centered on that theme. But the Mayor seems to have given up on presenting reasoned arguments a long time ago.

3. Doubling down on corruption and waste

In the last section of this release, the Mayor clings to his posture that New Orleans needs a bloated city car fleet for "public safety." This argument seems especially ridiculous in the same press release in which he refuses money to the DA and the office of the public defender. If he's attempting to claim that the car fleet cuts would touch the NOPD, I believe he's mistaken. The Inspector General audit on which these cuts were based did not examine the NOPD. The office of the Mayor alone has 73 take home cars (it might actually be 74). Each City Councilor has their own take home car. Veronica White has her own take home car. So does Brenda Hatfield. So does Ed Blakely. And Ceeon Quiett. And a lot of them are big huge SUVs. These people can afford their own cars and our auto industry could use some business.

It is blatant waste. Just fix it.

This Day In City Politics

Today I put on my Wednesday best and went to City Hall for the budget vote and then to check out the Committee to Reopen Charity's protest of LSU.

And I took notes.

City Hall buzzed more than usual. Somehow this was the first time I'd ever made in time to see the official opening credits. Here's what I wrote down shortly after it was appropriate to sit:

Did you know that every city council meeting begins the same way?
First is an exceedingly long prayer. This made me uncomfortable.
Then is the pledge of allegiance.
Then is an extremely poorly produced video of the star spangled banner with all sorts of images of New Orleans – Pre Katrina. It’s weird and it’s a waste of time.

Normally I'm okay with Christian prayer, even when the venue is somewhat inappropriate in a secular society. (I'm an agnostic Jew) I think that a lot of times, those that care about the separation of church and state pick poor battles by going after things like the ten commandments on courthouse walls, etc. This prayer before the start of this Council meeting felt pretty wrong. Generally, it's not a matter that I get worked up about, especially considering the other types of things that get decided sometimes at Council. Today however, it certainly foreshadowed my discomfort with the entirety of the proceedings.

The stupid New Orleans chamber of commerce Star-Spangled Banner public access video is unintentional comedy and is especially redundant after the pledge. I'll stand by that.

Okay so taking stock of the attendees...

Lots of employees wearing SDT Disposal apparel. Trashanova himself wore a suit and sat front and center, right in the middle of all his guys. Smart.

We also have a whole mess of protesters. They’re not here to push for the reopening of Charity, they’re here to rabble rouse against Councilwoman Stacy Head.

They have lots of signs.

“Recall Stacy Head”

A lot of these protesters are here representing the local chapter of the SCLC, the Southern Christian Leadership Council.

More on them later.

Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, as chair of the budget committee, is in charge of the talkings once Jackie Clarkson finishes testing the vote buttons. I don’t know what it is, but I really like the way Cynthia Hedge-Morrell conducts herself from her budget seat, on a personal level. She carries herself with a certain sarcastic dignity, like she hates her job but doesn't want anyone to know. She somehow always emerges from these food fights with less mashed potatoes on her clothes than everyone else.

They will be voting to override the Mayor’s veto, with some changes. Twenty-Five percent of the sanitation budget will be placed in reserve, pending the “audit.” Also, Council recommends that the Mayor make no service cuts once that money is released from reserve. As the Mayor, Ray Nagin has the power still choose not to execute parts of the sanitation contracts. So the lemon chemical spray will continue to be part of our lives.

Before we get to the vote, Cynthia Willard-Lewis is given the opportunity to grandstand for awhile because she has decided to buck her colleagues and vote to sustain the Mayor's veto. I've said it recently in this space but I'll say it again right now, Cynthia Willard-Lewis is Mayor Nagin's staunchest ally and most reliable vote on City Council.

It is important not to gloss over Councilwoman Willard-Lewis' speech because I thought it was quite revealing. The entire thing was a lie. I wish I had a transcript for you but allow me to relay a few of the key points she was making.

- There are a lot of people out there that question why resources are going into the city's most devastated neighborhoods, like the ones in her district. These discussions are "fallacious" because these areas are returning and she'd like to symbolically put an end to those "fallacious" discussions today.

- She is voting against Council because she wants to vote for a budget that has "humanity" in it as well.

- Throws in the prerequisite dig at Stacy Head with a comment about the sanitation contracts: "Some people say we paid for a Cadillac. Well we asked for a Cadillac."

Then the rest of City Council voted to override the Mayor's veto, cancelling the spending cuts Mr. Nagin had proposed across the board.

Each was allowed to say a few words. A lot of high fives over funding for the DA and for the office of the public defender. James Carter says this is the first time that Orleans Parish has ever funded the public defender. Is that true? That's sad if it's true. It's about time.

Cynthia Willard-Lewis then got another chance to grandstand, touching on many of the same themes. This may have been when she used the "humanity" term but the speeches were more or else the same.

Cynthia Willard-Lewis

I want to go into some detail here because I found her statements to be some of the most hypocritical I've ever heard delivered by an elected official in a public setting.

It's one thing if she's going to talk about the nefarious intentions of those still trying to backdoor a shrink the footprint campaign to raze her district, but she really just used the idea of that threat to create an unidentifiable other. She voted to sustain the Mayor's veto, so she was quite literally voting for the Mayor's budget that would have made major service cuts to her district. The other sad irony is that if Cynthia Willard-Lewis really cared about injecting "humanity" into the budget process, then she would have made an issue out of the proposed $79 million to be spent buying houses to raze in Lower Mid City instead of going toward the rebuilding and reopening of Charity Hospital. She has the power to question expenditures like $30 million for the Reinventing the Crescent project in the Marigny. She could have come out and opposed the school facilities master plan, which I argued shortchanged damaged neighborhoods. Instead, she voted for the Mayor's budget and his plans to strip the public defenders office and to strip after-school programs. She could have offered Councilwoman Midura some help in restoring the money needed to pay to fix bad street lights. She did not. She instead voted for the Mayor's service-cutting budget and gave a speech about how she was this great champion for social justice. It was an insult to anyone that pays attention to anything in this city. Cynthia Willard-Lewis is a toady for the Nagin administration and it is Nagin administration policy to shrink the footprint by contracting out master planning services to firms that work to implement artificial measures of neighborhood "viability" as the primary means of determining who gets rebuild money and who gets nothing. Cynthia Willard-Lewis is no champion of social justice and her speech of lies today made her look more like a scam artist than a public official.

Sorry for the rant but that speech made me so angry.

Anyway, then Cynthia Hedge-Morrell explained how awful this whole budget process is, how rushed and inefficient it is. Word. It's totally disorganized.

She promises to get with Mr. Cerasoli to work on ways to improve the process.

Then it was time for public comment and Spiver Gordon of the SCLC was permitted to speak first.

The SCLC was once a great organization at the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Dr. Martin Luther King founded it.

Some things have changed but SCLC's membership has not. The organization has not been dynamic, has not recruited a new leadership class, and has not been fully engaged on the issues where other AA political insurgent organizations are leading.

This can happen with movement organizations sometimes. After a series of initial successes, some organizations lose focus or are unable to shift to respond to changes in political opportunity structures. As organizations earn victories, they are unable to reframe their purpose in a way that effectively maintains rank and file mobilization. Or, they are co-opted into establishment structures.

I'd argue that this occurred to the labor movement as unions appeared to become more concerned with the maintaining bureaucratic norms they were able to win during years of boom (perhaps because they got to close to the leaders of the Democratic party) than with actually fighting for higher wages and better workplace protections. It is happening in the LGBT movement right now as grassroots activists are rebelling against the Human Rights Campaign for their narrow focus on organization building and 'acceptable' campaigns for reforms to hate crime laws.

The SCLC also succumbed to the bureaucratic temptation of many movement organizations before it and after it, they became establishment.

Spiver Gordon

I wrote about this extensively well over a year ago when I went to the Jena 6 protest and watched Spiver Gordon hog the microphone while the much younger crowd rolled their eyes. I wrote about them again last year when Spiver Gordon threatened to boycott the city of New Orleans for investigating the sanitation contracts. Oyster wrote about SCLC then too, noting that the organization that once mobilized 42,000 people to march in Selma now only has 3,000 dues paying members worldwide. He highlighted a sad quote from former SCLC President Fred Shuttlesworth as he lamented a disastrous meeting in 2004 shortly before his resignation:

For years, deceit, mistrust and a lack of spiritual discipline and truth have eaten away at the core of this once-hallowed organization.

And here was Spiver Gordon once again in front of City Council railing against Stacy Head because Councilwoman Head has this history of rudeness when it comes to interacting with some African American preachers.

Reverand Dr. Marshall Truehill, who is someone I respect a great deal, explained Stacy Head's conduct in the context of her policies, by highlighting the kissing incident that occurred at that unfortunate Council vote that sealed the fate of the city's public housing developments.

Reverend Truehill has the credibility to speak out against Stacy Head because he was there outside of City Council last year and fought for the rights of the city's poor public housing residents every step of the way.

But Spiver Gordon and SCLC were not there last year. They mobilized to protect Jimmie Woods and Alvin Richard but they are too often MIA when it comes to issues that really matter to young black people in the city of New Orleans.

--

So I got up and walked over to the protest being conducted by the Committee to Save Charity Hospital. These guys are doing something that's really important. The failure to reopen Charity remains a scourge on this city's reputation. It's absence has contributed to the public health nightmare that is Southern Louisiana. Poor black people have relied on Charity for decades but our state and municipal leadership would rather raze a residential neighborhood to build two private hospitals than to even entertain the idea of rehabilitating Charity.

There were about thirty people there to picket an LSU administrative building. They had signs and slogans but the thing they had more than anything else was an issue of critical importance. I don't know if I can say I was empowered by the turnout, I thought the protest should have been at City Hall, but it's easy to second-guess. Certainly, there is a core there but it will be important for mobilizations to get bigger and louder if mobilization is indeed critical to blocking the plans.

Renew - Restore - Reopen Charity Hospital

Spiver Gordon and the SCLC didn't turn up here, I'm sorry to say. Could've used 'em.

--

There were several ironic juxtapositions to think about as I walked back to my car. They were all disheartening to a certain degree.

Budget Trash

The budget for the Department of Sanitation proved to be one of the biggest sticking points at City Council yesterday. Veronica White was a no-show.

From the Times-Picayune:

The climactic debate involved the Sanitation Department, the object of frequent criticism from some council members, particularly over suggestions that the three companies that collect trash for the city have been serving far fewer addresses than they have billed the city for.

Sanitation Director Veronica White, who clashed angrily with Councilwoman Stacy Head during the council's hearing on the department's budget three weeks ago, was not present for the debate, and her name was barely mentioned.

After rejecting an amendment by council President Jackie Clarkson that would have cut 15 percent of the Sanitation Department's budget and diverted $4 million to pay for repairing street lights across the city, council members voted 4-3 to put half of the allocation in reserve and to require a second audit of the trash collection deals.

The results of an initial audit of the companies' performance is due next week, but some members made it clear that they want an audit by a firm with no ties to the administration.

Clarkson, Head, Fielkow and Shelley Midura voted for the move, with James Carter, Cynthia Hedge-Morrell and Cynthia Willard-Lewis opposed.

Hedge-Morrell, the chairwoman of the council's Budget Committee, had proposed putting 15 percent of the sanitation budget in reserve, but the majority wanted to go further.

Later, Nagin swooped in to blast Council's budget.

In an unexpected late-night appearance before the council, Nagin said he was "a little disappointed" at its actions and said the city is "headed for a financial train wreck" in 2010 because of the council.

Do you think he'll veto it?

Nagin believes the train wreck is upcoming because of Council's decision to use one-time monies to plug this year's budget gap. I generally don't support that kind of budgeting either, actually, but we're talking about $10 million. Are we really on such soft footing for 2010 that this reallocation of 10 million bucks tips us over? That's something the Mayor should answer for, not Council.

UPDATE:

An anonymous reader reports that, in fact, Veronica White was in Council chambers. She was a no-show at the microphone, offering no defense of her department.

Blogs are awesome because of readers.

Does this mean that the T-P's mention that White "was not present for the debate" is inaccurate? Their line leaves a little bit more latitude than what I extrapolated.

Cerasoli and City Council

First, refer to Michelle Krupa's article for the T-P.

Mr. Cerasoli actually gave money back to the general fund, unable to spend all of his 2008 budget.

Part of the reason for that is the bureaucratic holdups that continue to gum up his ability to fully engage his office. For instance, the city has not yet delivered secure computers. Computers. He's also had trouble navigating the civil service rules in order to hire his desired staff.

-

But there's something really fun about watching Cerasoli and Council interact with each other that you'd need to see in person to really understand.

Council learned the news that the IG would be returning money to the city. Then Cerasoli outlined a couple of new initiatives, including a tipline and some new hires. It's not so unlike most other presentations, except for the confidece and competence.

Then Council gets to ask questions.

It started off normally. Councilman Carter, recently found alive and returned to his parents, asked some good questions about the independent police monitor. Then Cynthia Hedge-Morrell and Arnie Fielkow went back and forth about establishing a protocol for calling on Mr. Cerasoli to lend official comment, since now the office receives requests from Councilors haphazardly.

But it becomes clear that all of the Councilors want to ask questions about this process or that process. They want to know what he thinks about the budget process.

Because it is absolutely ridiculous to present Council a budget outlined with hundreds of pages of supporting data and expect them to be able to properly evaluate it, modify it, and pass it on a time frame of three or four weeks.

Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, for instance, wore this exasperated look on her face that told it all. She's the chair of the budget committee, and it looked like she just wanted Cerasoli to come up and give her a big hug and a hot chocolate.

Councilwoman Stacy Head lifted up her budget binder, at least two inches thick, and just nodded.

Inspector General Cerasoli couldn't do much more at these moments than flash a bemused and knowing smile. He agreed that the budget process was extremely outdated. The schedule is such that the Council has its back against the wall to pretty much just pass whatever the Mayor puts in front of them. There just isn't enough time to fully vet every department or modify the Mayor's proposals before something just needs to be passed.

Plus, Cerasoli explained, Council really doesn't have all the tools it needs to do a good job anyway: (paraphrasing)

"There isn't, to my knowledge, a list for you that includes every contract the city is entered in."

Yikes!

UPDATE: You can see some of what I'm talking about in clips from this WWL report.

--

P.S.

Cerasoli should have a report or two ready for the public soon, too.

And he says hello to 'the bloggers'. Another coffee talk might be forthcoming.

Are They Stupid Or Do They Think We're Stupid?

I'm so confused by what's going on between Blakely, his bottle of wine, and his boss.

First, Blakely takes a new consultant job in Dubai. Then he says he misses his family and is considering leaving New Orleans. Then Ray Nagin says that Blakely is likely not going anywhere and was drunk when he suggested otherwise. Then Ray Nagin proposes a budget that writes Ed Blakely's office out of existence.

In that move to a construction-heavy phase, Nagin proposes abolishing the Office of Recovery and Development Administration in June 2009, although he mentioned nothing regarding ORDA Director Ed Blakely’s position or tenure with the city.

“I want to remind you that when we proposed the office, we said it would not be a permanent fixture in city government,” Nagin told council members.

So he's staying?

It's like some perverted Nagin-speak Abbott and Costello routine.

I think he's leaving, but who the hell cares anymore?

Forget rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic metaphor. This is more like crashing a parked '95 Saturn coupe into another parked '95 Saturn wagon.

Confused? Me too.

From the AP:

Nagin said, "I don't think this recovery would be where it is today without his great work."

Nagin, who last year said 2008 would be a tipping point in the city's recovery, said Monday he got it right: "We've tipped."

Yeah, a solid fifteen percent of the way. High fives all around!

Or was Nagin talking wine as well?

Correct Me If I'm Wrong

Late last week, Paul Vallas wrote a letter to the editor of the Times-Picayune defending the Recovery School District's controversial school facilities master plan. In it, Mr. Vallas pushes back on recent reports by the Cowen Institute and the Bureau of Governmental Research that criticize the master plan's financial underpinning.

In short, because funding is concrete for only phase 1 of the facilities master plan, the independent groups argue that shortfalls made more likely by the financial crisis could lead to vast discrepancies in the quality of educational facilities in New Orleans with polar haves and have-nots.

In his letter to the T-P, Vallas addressed the uncertain funding structure after Phase 1 ends in 2013:

Phase 1 is funded by federal disaster recovery dollars that must be spent on building schools. While we're sure that we will be able to fund much of Phase 2, we know that in the years to come, the city and state will have to step up to the plate to raise capital funds to fully implement the plan. That is not surprising, or unusual.

In a sense, Paul Vallas is correct. Local and state governments do often have to share the costs of major projects such as the one the RSD is currently proposing. What I'm not sure of, is how usual it is for a project to begin without a plan to win funding. For instance, when a baseball team wants to hold taxpayers ransom for a new publicly-financed stadium, what they do is draw up a blueprint for their new digs and negotiate with the state and city for a plan to share the cost of stadium construction, land acquisitions, and related infrastructure improvements. That sounds similar to what the RSD is proposing but it really isn't. In this example, the team secures whatever legislation they need from the state and from the local city council and then begins construction. What they certainly do not do, is start digging holes into the ground with only enough money to build a third of the stadium. Here, the RSD wants to start construction without any concrete mechanisms to bankroll the later phases of the plan. Phase 1 alone insufficiently meets the needs of our district by concentrating precious dollars into just a few buildings without having evaluated the efficacy of spreading those dollars more prudently into targeted renovations.

The other thing I'd point out in this case is Paul Vallas' record from his time in Philadelphia. I wrote a three part series about this last year. Recall that Mr. Vallas was fired by Philadelphia's School Reform Commission after running unpredicted budget deficits running over $100 million. He seemed to have established a pattern. Mr. Vallas would spend furiously to implement certain aspects of his academic program and when he was forced to go to the state capital or to city council to defend a "surprise" deficit, it Vallas that would apply the pressure, goading lawmakers to "step up to the plate" to make up for his lack of fiscal restraint. To a certain extent, this is admirable because urban school districts are so badly underfunded. In practice, however, it provides for very short-term incremental progress. Vallas was successful once or twice in squeezing out a little bit extra to make up for the over-spending but it is never too long before lawmakers get tired of the act. Of course, in Philadelphia, contributing to Vallas' budget woes were huge increases in the number and value of no-bid contracts and unethical benefits paid out to Vallas consultants.

Here, Mr. Vallas has followed the Philadelphia pattern in an exaggerated sense, having already been raked by BESE for poorly formulated budgets and busted by the T-P and I for inappropriately large consultant contracts - including one to a woman forced to resign after unethical reimbursements paid by the Philly school district.

Also, let us consider Vallas' record in terms of spending on facilities from his time in Philadelphia. This passage is from something I wrote as part of the three part series:

In an op-ed to the Philadelphia Inquirer after Vallas had come to New Orleans, City Controller Alan Butkovitz wrote: (it has become archived, sorry I can't give a real link)

Right from the start we encountered resistance from the former CEO Paul Vallas when we questioned the insufficient progress and costs related to his $1.5 billion capital building program. It had a balance of $469 million - but little to show for it in the way of school construction. Vallas' original plan called for at least 20 schools to be built. At this time, we can only identify seven new schools that have been completed.

Ground broke on some construction way back in 2004. That there wouldn't be a clear accounting of what was built and when and for how much is shocking to me and should raise immediate red flags for everyone here in New Orleans given that the RSD is promising such a massive rebuilding program.

I called Harvey Rice, the First Deputy City Controller of the City of Philadelphia, to get more information about the capital improvement program. This is some of what he told me:

"There were two criticisms. One, we wanted to know what he did with the money. What did he build? No one has gotten that. We haven't gotten it. I don't even know if they have it in a document where they can succinctly sit down with you or anyone and say 'this is what we did'." - "We tried to do it on our own, spent a lot of hours going through newspaper articles, press statements, other statements that he made and trying to piece it all together... it's just been a difficult task." - "The other criticism was... that the school district wasn't spending it. They still have about half a billion dollars left... If you're not spending it, each year, material and labor costs increase, especially in Philadelphia, which is a union town. We thought if you're not spending it now, that sometime later you're not going to get the bang for your buck."
-

I called the Philadelphia School District directly and asked for information related to the capital improvement program. Nobody got back to me. (I'm a nobody though)

Mr. Vallas has been adamant about the need to move quickly to begin schools construction on the master plan, threatening that federal funding could be lost if more time is taken to review the proposed spending. This is an interesting argument given his failure to spend money he was granted in Philadelphia.

---

Lastly

This is the issue I wanted to raise when I titled the post.

My understanding throughout this entire process was that Mr. Vallas was not particularly involved in the master plan. Rather, the sense I've always gotten was that this was the other Paul's brainchild. Pastorek hired Parsons-Concordia to create the master plan before Paul Vallas was brought to New Orleans. It was Paul Pastorek and RSD Director of Facilities Planning Constance Caruso who worked with the hired firm to craft the document. It was Paul Pastorek who rejected a draft of the document in May that forced the delay of the release of the plan until late August.

From what I've gathered, Mr. Vallas's role in crafting the master plan had been limited to academic programming - the negotiation of different curricular themes for different schools. His job with the RSD is as an administrator of the schools themselves and it is my belief that this is what his responsibility was vis-a-vis the master plan.

So to me, it is very interesting to see Mr. Vallas being put up front to defend the plan. Where is Paul Pastorek? Where is Constance Caruso?

I hadn't planned on refreshing myself on Vallas' record in Philly as it pertained to the master plan because my understanding had long been that Vallas had very little to do with the SFMPOP.

-

Here is this post's musical accompaniment.

-

Expect news of a contract extension for Paul Vallas to percolate soon.

Recovery School District and Consultant Expansion

Though Paul Pastorek and Paul Vallas will laud this as a measure that will reduce "red tape," I think it is quite troubling.

The Senate Committee on Finance amended House Bill 891 to allow Pastorek to hire educational consultants without taking bids on contracts for the work.

He would be able to hire a consultant for a year’s worth of work beginning July 1 at no more than $250,000.

Currently, consultants who are paid more than $50,000 must be hired through a competitively bid contract.

Thus, the Recovery School District has reduced oversight on academic consultant contracts, quintupling the amount of money they can dole out in a single purchase without a price comparison. Upon hearing of this story, two things popped into my memory:

1. Paul Vallas got into trouble in Philadelphia for increases in the number of no-bid consultant contracts awarded over the course of his administration.

2. Some of the consultant contracts already awarded here in Louisiana by Mr. Vallas have already come under the scrutiny of the Times-Picayune.

I think this gives Mr. Pastorek and Mr. Vallas an awful lot of leeway...

Notes on the RSD Budget

More in the T-P today about the revised RSD budget:

The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education charged Vallas with reducing his reliance on "Restart" dollars -- one-time money earmarked to rebuild schools in hurricane-affected regions -- for recurring expenses in an earlier roughly $202 million spending plan so the district could build up a healthy reserve and prevent drastic cuts in the future.

This is an improvement from BESE.

Also interesting was the mobilization of Morris Jeff advocates and their coverage victory:

Also at the meeting, a coalition of 25 people called Neighbors for Morris Jeff, wearing matching white shirts, implored the state board to work with them to reopen the closed Morris F.X. Jeff Elementary. The group said they envision developing the school as an early childhood development or an elementary school.

The convoy of parents and neighbors came armed with the results of a survey of more 280 households in favor of reopening the school, demographics of school-age children in proximity to the school and a Powerpoint presentation including a sketch of a proposed redesign of the school.

"Our need for a quality school is undeniable," neighborhood resident Shana Sassoon told the board.

The future of the elementary school will be decided in a larger master plan expected in August that would lay out the future of the city's nearly 130 public school campuses, only about 80 of which would be needed because of a shrunken post-Katrina population.

And also on WWLTV.

Good work Morris F.X. Jeff!

Toys for Cops

Buried at the end of today's T-P glossing over of the Mayor's proposed budget was a couple of paragraphs about public safety spending:

Nagin's budget recommends spending more than $205 million -- 45 percent of all general fund revenue -- on public safety. The Police Department would receive $112.3 million -- up 15 percent from the $97.1 million approved for this year.

The proposal calls for new bulletproof vests, what Nagin called a pair of "Harry Lee-type tanks" and the "latest and greatest" machine guns. "We're going to have some 'shock and awe' stuff to take care of some of the criminal element out there," he said.

Nagin said pay raises implemented for police officers in the past two years have yielded positive results, reducing the attrition rate and boosting the size of recent recruit classes. With overtime, he said, an officer now can earn more than $60,000 after the first year.

"We're starting to recruit some incredible people," Nagin said.

"If I was just starting out in my career, I probably would consider being a police officer. I'd be a dangerous man with a badge and a gun."

Okay, nice to see an increase in spending, I guess. It's encouraging that cops will be getting bullet proof vests. I think it's a good thing that police will be paid.

Do we really need "shock and awe"? (Great to see El Presidente rubbing off on our boy)

How many murders are we going to solve with tanks? How many murders are we going to prevent with tanks? Same questions sub "the latest and greatest machine guns" for tanks.

Meanwhile, further up in the same piece, Nagin reveals the programs whose funding is tied to his plan to 2-mill tax increase. This will be the big controversy in his budget, as all of council has decided they won't support the "roll forward." The focus will be on funding for the Inspector General's office, which Nagin has pegged to the millage rates.

However in light of the enormous increase in public safety spending for tanks and machine guns, I think it is critical to note that also at risk of being de-funded because of the millage rate battle, is a proposed $1.6 million for "sports, cultural, and after-school programs for young people," and $500,000 "to improve youth services at the city's Juvenile Court."

Now I don't know what it exactly it means to improve youth services at the city's juvenile court and I don't know what kind of sports, cultural, and after-school programs we're being asked to fund. I do know that it's a helluva lot more appealing and useful to residents of New Orleans than two tanks and the latest machine guns.

UPDATE: I forgot to put this line by Ray Nagin in bold so I'll just do paste it again and put it in bold right here. "I'd be a dangerous man with a badge and a gun." No kidding.