IPN’s Budget

Critique

To the Editor:

I spoke on behalf of the Independent Party of Newtown (IPN) at the Legislative Council’s budget hearing last week. The Bee provided an excellent summary of the budget items I highlighted for further review, as well as our call for a task force to investigate additional tax relief options for seniors and low income residents. However, the context in which our budget suggestions were offered requires some clarification.

IPN has made reforming the budget process a priority since its inception. It is plain from a casual perusal of the selectmen’s budget proposal binder (posted at www.independentpartyofnewtown.com) that insufficient justification is currently offered for many budget requests. In addition, there is no summary analysis identifying mandated versus discretionary items or distinguishing between spending required to maintain services and requests to expand them. Town officials need such information to intelligently and efficiently evaluate the budget. Taxpayers require access to such documentation to assess how effectively this oversight is taking place.

Especially in this budget year, given the economic climate and the universally recognized need for some kind of high school addition, expanded programs in all other areas require strict scrutiny and thorough justification. To the extent that items are not absolutely necessary, they should be postponed. Indeed, we have already been told we must put off addressing at least one critical project: the long-delayed technology upgrade in our lower schools.

Given the need for fiscal austerity, IPN highlighted 11 areas within the town budget, covering over $1.5 million, for review by the Legislative Council. Most of these appeared to be either expansions of services or projects that could be postponed for at least one year, such as road work. In addition, $97,000 for the new town hall, buried deep within the documentation, appeared to be more appropriately paid for over time via bond issue than as a lump sum in this year’s operating budget [note The Bee’s correction this week indicating this item has not been cut]. IPN was, however, mistaken in thinking that repaving the town hall parking lot was still planned. This was partly due to the fact that the cut was not separately itemized in town documents, demonstrating yet again the need for greater clarity in budget reporting.

IPN realizes that many people may be unhappy with our suggestion that organizations such as the library, police department and Youth Services/Family Counseling should perhaps receive smaller increases than they have requested. But these organizations asked for growth of 7.5 percent, 7.1 percent and 28.5 percent respectively, over their 2007-2008 allocations. No doubt there are worthwhile goals behind those requests, but they were not made clear in the budget documentation. IPN therefore asked the Legislative Council to review them.

It is incumbent on those requesting the taxpayers’ money to publicly justify their budgets to the Legislative Council. Independent investigations should not be required simply to understand why money is being requested. And in such a tight fiscal environment, all parties need to think long and hard about the relative priority of discretionary budget items.

Sincerely,

Ben Roberts

19 Farrell Road, Newtown                                                April 2, 2008