Last week I decided to vote against the 2011-2012 Proposed Operating Budget. Here’s why.
There is no question that we are in the midst of a serious fiscal problem. I fully understand that tough decisions and significant cuts had to be made, and I was prepared to make them. I also understand that people can reasonably disagree as to where the limited funds we have should be spent. So even though I was personally hoping that the budget would have found a way to keep libraries open four and a half days instead of four days a week, or that we could have retained more park rangers, or found a way to have more code enforcement officers in the neighborhoods, these issues alone would not have prevented me from voting to approve the budget.
But while we can reasonably disagree on how many days libraries are open, or how many park rangers are enough, there is one area where there is no room for disagreement: we need more police officers on the street. Immediately.
Much has been said about the need to be fiscally responsible, and while that is true, our primary responsibility as elected officials is keeping San Jose residents safe. With 27 homicides in the city already this year, we are not doing a great job of that so far. And since our already thin police department will be losing over 100 more cops within weeks, I am deeply concerned about the impact on our communities.
While the entire Council has expressed concern over the public safety crisis, there was an opportunity for the Council to actually take action to make the City safer during last week’s budget process. The majority of the Council, for reasons that I have to conclude are political, chose not to.
I submitted a proposal that would have put more cops on the street while still allowing us to prepare for next year’s projected budget deficit. My plan had two components: first, I recommended hiring additional cops by using funds that would only become available if we don’t have a November election to implement the Mayor’s fiscal emergency plan. The city has set aside $3.4 million for potential November ballot measures, but it looks unlikely that the proposed ballot measures can be drafted and approved in time for a November election. Thus, my proposal would have used the $3.4 million to restore police officers only if the November elections don’t occur. If the election doesn’t happen, these funds will just be sitting there unused. [see my proposal here: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20110614/20110614_0901att2.pdf]
The second part of my proposal requires a little more explanation. Each fall, the city releases its Annual Report, which states how much money San Jose received and spent over the past fiscal year. Each year the city tries to predict how much money it will spend and how much it will make. Not surprisingly, these predictions will usually be at least a little off, and because our predictions tend to be conservative, we end up with more money than we expect to. These leftovers funds are called the Excess Fund Balance. Historically the Excess Fund Balance has been over $20 million, but last year, one of the worst fiscal years in San Jose’s recent history, we had an Excess Fund Balance of $6.6 million.
Instead of using all of the Excess Fund Balance to prepare for next year’s budget deficit, as the Mayor proposed, I recommended using 25% of the Excess Fund Balance to buy back additional cops this fall after the release of the Annual Report this fall. The remaining 75% of the Excess Fund Balance would still be saved for next year’s predicted budget shortfall.
Despite the fact that my proposal would have only used funds that would be available if there’s no election in November, or if San Jose ends up having more money than expected after the release of the Annual Report, the majority of the Council chose to reject it.
I wasn’t the only Councilmember who was troubled by the lack of funding for police officers in the Mayor’s budget. Councilmember Campos proposed adding more cops by requiring the Redevelopment Agency to repay $2 million of its outstanding loan to the city. This proposal would not have taken away any money from any fund or department; rather, it simply would have required the payment of money that the city is already due. This plan was also rejected by the Council.*
Why, during the worst crime spike we’ve seen in years, would we not put more cops on the street? Especially when there were ways to further protect San Jose residents without affecting our ability to prepare for next year’s budget deficit. Is it because certain people on the council were more concerned with making sure that the solution is their solution rather than the best solution?
The unfortunate truth is that politics played a huge role in these decisions. The decision to not use the $3.4 million earmarked for the November election that will most likely not happen is a political decision, not a fiscal one. The decision to not require partial repayment of the multi-million dollar loan to the RDA was a political one, not a fiscal one. I cannot and will not play politics with the lives of San Jose residents.
Perhaps the most telling vote was on Councilmember Chu’s memo. Here’s a little background: each year each Council District office is given an equal amount of money to spend each year. Historically, any unspent funds get rolled over into the Council District budget for the following year. Last year, due to the huge budget shortfall, we decided that we should contribute a percentage of our leftover office funds to the general fund. Because we used a percentage rather than a flat rate, Council Districts that spent most of their funds had to contribute very little while Council Districts that had spent their funds carefully and had funds leftover had to contribute a lot.
The Mayor’s budget included a plan to have Council Districts again contribute a percentage of leftover funds. This year, some Council Districts would have had to contribute nothing, while other offices would’ve had to contribute nearly $100,000. Simply put, offices that had been fiscally cautious were the hardest hit. Councilmember Chu’s proposal was very similar to one of the Mayor’s plan, except that instead of taking a percentage of the leftover district funds, which had different offices contributing drastically different amounts, it proposed using a flat rate so that each Council District kicked in the same amount of money. Most significantly, Councilmember Chu’s plan would have saved about $120,000 more than the Mayor’s plan. This plan was rejected by the council. [To see Councilmember Chu’s memo, click here: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20110614/20110614_0901att.pdf]
For months, the Council has stated repeatedly how bad our fiscal situation is, yet the majority of the Council voted down Councilmember Chu’s proposal that would have saved more money. Why would the Council decline to save more money using a perfectly fair method of having each office contribute the same amount? Could it be because most of the people who voted against the proposal would have had to contribute more money under Councilmember Chu’s proposal than they would have under the Mayor’s proposal. I would like to believe that self-interest and petty politics wouldn’t play a role in these decisions, but unfortunately it appears to be the case.
This is why I could not vote for the budget. The budget did not go far enough in ensuring the safety of San Jose residents, even though there were fiscally responsible proposals to bring back more cops. The budget also didn’t take every opportunity to save as much money as possible, strictly because certain Councilmember were apparently against contributing their fair share of office funds back to the City’s general fund. The Mayor and his allies knew that they had the numbers to approve whatever budget plan they wanted, and that’s exactly what they did. I cannot in good conscience vote to approve a budget that is playing politics with the safety of SJ residents.
Of course, don’t take my word for it. I recommend that you watch the Council meeting yourself and draw your own conclusions: http://sanjose.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
_______________________
*Councilmember Constant, a fiscal conservative who also voted against the proposed budget, submitted a memo that would have resulted in hiring more police officers. While I appreciate his effort to add police officers, his plan would have taken nearly half of the funding that would allow us to keep our libraries open four days a week, and I believed there were better ways to get more cops on the streets without further cutting library hours.
