Should We Promote Budgets as Policy Documents?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Michael R. Ford
November 15, 2020
In the past year, we have held several well-attended city council meetings in Oshkosh, WI. The two most crowded were in regards to the creation of an equity and inclusion committee, and the consideration of an indoor mask ordinance to combat COVID-19. The crowds at these meetings were not surprising; both dealt with important issues dominating the wider public discourse at this moment in time. Last week we held our public budget hearing, and there was a not a single public comment. Why?
Deep down I suppose I know the answer. Budgets are just not exciting to most people. In my public budgeting course I always ask my students who has experience reading municipal budgets. I usually get a few hand raises from my biased sample. Which leads to my next question; Who here has experience that was not part of their job? This question tends to bring most of the hands down. The responses always get me thinking too. Are the only people following the budget process those who are also a part of the process? If the answer is yes, which it seems to be, it is really not shocking. Municipal budgets can be intimidating. They are made by and for government employees, not the public at-large.
Part of this is unavoidable of course, as budgeting is a bureaucratic process that facilitates government decisionmaking. Budgets should be created with government leaders as an intended audience. But, this fact should not come at the expense of the public audience, who are the actual stakeholders in the results of the budget process. The budgeting process is the most consequential thing municipal governments do, and an area where a little bit of public engagement can go a long way to improving government performance.
Consider the previously mentioned equity and inclusion committee. The committee demonstrates the City of Oshkosh WI’s commitment to the tenet of social equity. Its creation signaled to the public that yes, we see your concern in this area, and yes, we want to address it. So while the creation of a subject-specific committee was a good thing, it is only one committee among many committees competing for resources and influence. It is through the budget process that resources are distributed broadly across all areas of a public organization. Creating the committee was an important enabling reform, but it is through the budget process that equity and inclusion will actually be operationalized.
In other words, allocating resources for any government priority enables implementation, and ultimately success. So again, why does this important process garner such little attention? Part of the reason, in my opinion, is that our field works hard to distinguish policy from finances. At the state level in Wisconsin, we go as far as to identify policy items for removal from the state budget process. At the local level, we take pains to demonstrate that authorizing a policy, and authorizing spending for a policy, are separate actions. But in reality, just about every major policy change in Wisconsin occurs in the budget. At the local level, authorizing money for something almost always results in program authorization.
I wonder if embracing budgets as the policy documents they are could increase the public’s interest level. I myself often tell folks the budget matters because everyone should know where government money is coming from, and where government money is going. While that message gets my attention as a professor teaching public budgeting with more than a passing interest in government finance, it may not resonate with the general public. Perhaps a better message is that the budgeting process is an opportunity to influence policy. Instead of advertising discussions about mill rates and debt capacity, we can position the budgeting process as an annual referendum on the quality of core services like public safety and public works. From a design standpoint we can do a better job of building budgets as performance evaluation documents geared toward the general public.
Embracing the role of policy in the budget process is not without risk. At the national and state levels the budget process is, at times, used as an ideological weapon. We do not want to see funding for core local services held hostage by the whims of a political party. While the non-partisan nature of local government would serve as a check against misuse of the budget process, it may not be enough of a check. At the very least, those of us in local government can do a better job explaining the relationship between policy and budgeting to our residents. This can occur through improved budget design, the creation of more formal feedback loops and subject specific budget hearings.
Author: Michael R. Ford is an associate professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, where he teaches graduate courses in budgeting and research methods. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance, accountability and school choice. He currently serves as the president of the Midwest Public Affairs Conference, and as an elected member of the Oshkosh, WI Common Council.
(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading...
Should We Promote Budgets as Policy Documents?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Michael R. Ford
November 15, 2020
In the past year, we have held several well-attended city council meetings in Oshkosh, WI. The two most crowded were in regards to the creation of an equity and inclusion committee, and the consideration of an indoor mask ordinance to combat COVID-19. The crowds at these meetings were not surprising; both dealt with important issues dominating the wider public discourse at this moment in time. Last week we held our public budget hearing, and there was a not a single public comment. Why?
Deep down I suppose I know the answer. Budgets are just not exciting to most people. In my public budgeting course I always ask my students who has experience reading municipal budgets. I usually get a few hand raises from my biased sample. Which leads to my next question; Who here has experience that was not part of their job? This question tends to bring most of the hands down. The responses always get me thinking too. Are the only people following the budget process those who are also a part of the process? If the answer is yes, which it seems to be, it is really not shocking. Municipal budgets can be intimidating. They are made by and for government employees, not the public at-large.
Part of this is unavoidable of course, as budgeting is a bureaucratic process that facilitates government decisionmaking. Budgets should be created with government leaders as an intended audience. But, this fact should not come at the expense of the public audience, who are the actual stakeholders in the results of the budget process. The budgeting process is the most consequential thing municipal governments do, and an area where a little bit of public engagement can go a long way to improving government performance.
Consider the previously mentioned equity and inclusion committee. The committee demonstrates the City of Oshkosh WI’s commitment to the tenet of social equity. Its creation signaled to the public that yes, we see your concern in this area, and yes, we want to address it. So while the creation of a subject-specific committee was a good thing, it is only one committee among many committees competing for resources and influence. It is through the budget process that resources are distributed broadly across all areas of a public organization. Creating the committee was an important enabling reform, but it is through the budget process that equity and inclusion will actually be operationalized.
In other words, allocating resources for any government priority enables implementation, and ultimately success. So again, why does this important process garner such little attention? Part of the reason, in my opinion, is that our field works hard to distinguish policy from finances. At the state level in Wisconsin, we go as far as to identify policy items for removal from the state budget process. At the local level, we take pains to demonstrate that authorizing a policy, and authorizing spending for a policy, are separate actions. But in reality, just about every major policy change in Wisconsin occurs in the budget. At the local level, authorizing money for something almost always results in program authorization.
I wonder if embracing budgets as the policy documents they are could increase the public’s interest level. I myself often tell folks the budget matters because everyone should know where government money is coming from, and where government money is going. While that message gets my attention as a professor teaching public budgeting with more than a passing interest in government finance, it may not resonate with the general public. Perhaps a better message is that the budgeting process is an opportunity to influence policy. Instead of advertising discussions about mill rates and debt capacity, we can position the budgeting process as an annual referendum on the quality of core services like public safety and public works. From a design standpoint we can do a better job of building budgets as performance evaluation documents geared toward the general public.
Embracing the role of policy in the budget process is not without risk. At the national and state levels the budget process is, at times, used as an ideological weapon. We do not want to see funding for core local services held hostage by the whims of a political party. While the non-partisan nature of local government would serve as a check against misuse of the budget process, it may not be enough of a check. At the very least, those of us in local government can do a better job explaining the relationship between policy and budgeting to our residents. This can occur through improved budget design, the creation of more formal feedback loops and subject specific budget hearings.
Author: Michael R. Ford is an associate professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, where he teaches graduate courses in budgeting and research methods. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance, accountability and school choice. He currently serves as the president of the Midwest Public Affairs Conference, and as an elected member of the Oshkosh, WI Common Council.
Follow Us!