A "Grand Experiment" In Budgeting
Anyone who's been following the City of Chicago's budgeting process
knows that neither the public nor elected officials have had much
substantive input into each year's spending. But up in Chicago's 49th
Ward, Ald. Joe Moore and some of his constituents are testing out a ...
Anyone who's been following the City of Chicago's budgeting process
knows that neither the public nor elected officials have had much
substantive input into each year's spending. But up in Chicago's 49th
Ward, Ald. Joe Moore and some of his constituents are testing out a new
process -- "participatory budgeting" -- at the local level.
Specifically, they are working together to determine how to divvy up the ward's $1.3 million "menu money" budget.
Each year, aldermen are given funding for infrastructure projects in their wards, from new lighting to street resurfacing. Inevitably, the list of potential uses for the money far outstretches the total sum available, leading to much consternation. Moore tells us he's hoping his "grand experiment" in budgeting will give his constituents a taste of "the tough choices" he's confronted with each year. "It shows the limited resources we have to work with," he says.
So far, the Roger's Park ward has been divided into eight sections. Over the past month, the process has unfolded during community meetings in each of those areas, where residents set their own priorities. (Read Jeff Wegerson's two dispatches over on Prairie State Blue.) In April, the groups will converge at a ward-wide meeting to put the most popular projects to a vote. A steering committee composed of folks from more than 30 community organizations is spearheading the process, and has drafted the (still very loose) rulebook.
While experiments with participatory budgeting are taking place in South America and some European countries, Moore believes this is the first example here in the United States. "Not only is this new to us," he says, "it's especially new to the Chicago, a city with a tradition of having decisions made with very little input."
Moore predicts that added input will also mean added understanding on the part of constituents: "It's politically wise. By including people in the process, they're less likely to criticize the spending decisions."
"It shows the limited resources we have to work with," [Moore] says.
In a time of limited resources the only rational option is to turn back the so-called "aldermanic menu" back to the capital budget. The only valid good government-oriented position on the so-called "aldermanic menu" program is its total abolition. The "aldermanic menu" program is fundamentally undemocratic. No series of community meetings on a per-ward basis can ameliorate the outrageous skipping of a principled weighing of the best use of this $65M total against the many priorities facing our home town. The ~$1.3M/ward is an ear-mark, a set-aside in our City's capital budget. If you think earmarks in Congress and "legislative initiatives" Springfield are a good way to do the people's binness maybe you're in favor of the aldermanic menu program. If our city govt were functioning properly, Streets & San and CDOT and all the City dept would of course be responsive to communities' priorities. The aldermanic menu program is a sop, a band-aid which serves only to institutionalize more fundamental accountability problems in our City departments which our elected representatives have no spine to tackle.
Further, the aldermanic menu program is one of the many ways the executive branch co-opts the legislative in Chicago. It is one of the primary mechanisms by which we are deprived of our right to representation. Giving legislators direct authority over spending blurs the executive/legislative distinction and co-opts our elected representatives into executive roles.
Until our aldermen begin exhibiting a minimal execution of their oversight responsibilities as mandated under state law, we citizens should do nothing to encourage them in their extra-curricular activities, including the make-believe "little mayor" personas they are only too happy to inhabit. Daley gives each alderman a mil plus to play dress-up with and in return they all look the other way on his grand plans.
Turn the $65M plus back to the capital budget, in tough times we do not have the luxury of this stunt.