In theory, it makes a lot of sense for Sacramento: An independent budget analyst would be an aggressive watchdog, sniffing out pork and guiding taxpayers who want to see how their money is spent.
If Sacramento ever transitions to a strong-mayor system, it will need a budget analyst.
While auditors scrutinize existing programs for waste and fraud, the analyst – like the well-regarded state Legislative Analyst’s Office – would help nip bad ideas in the bud.
But the City Council is in a rush to get a budget analyst on the cheap.
The Sacramento treasurer studied the issue and concluded the analyst office would need at least three staffers and an annual budget of $500,000 to properly do the job. But the council voted unanimously last week to pursue less expensive options.
Even if an analyst is necessary, the council’s decision to skimp threatens to undermine the effectiveness. If an analyst were to spike just a few bad proposals, the office would pay for itself and then some.
Here’s a better game plan for the council: Signal its support for the analyst if Sacramento does get a strong mayor, but hold off on any other decisions.
For now, the council must place the analyst proposal on the June 8 ballot. It doesn’t need to decide any other issues.
The council could see what voters say, the fate of the push for a strong mayor, and how tight the budget is before deciding how much to spend on the analyst and how to fund it.
The proposal emerged as a package deal with Mayor Kevin Johnson’s plan to grant the mayor broad new power, including more authority over the city budget. The analyst would help the council act as a check on a strong mayor.
The strong-mayor initiative, however, is headed nowhere fast. A Sacramento judge blocked it from going before the voters, ruling that only elected officials or a charter commission could make such a sweeping change. The 3rd District Court of Appeal refused to delay that ruling, making a June vote highly unlikely.
The budget analyst initiative, on the other hand, is still on track. It is still “absolutely” worthwhile even without a strong mayor, Johnson argues. Tom Hiltachk, the lawyer for Sacramentans for Accountable Government, the Johnson-backed force behind both ballot initiatives, insists that one good analyst could make a big difference for taxpayers.
But it’s an open question whether the post is necessary without a strong mayor. The city manager, who can be hired and fired by the council, already is supposed to weed out bad spending ideas.
In addition to using the Legislative Analyst’s Office as a model, proponents looked to San Diego, which has had a similar budget analyst for four years. San Diego’s need for reform was greater after a pension scandal. But as in Sacramento, the idea was tied to a strong-mayor push. Voters approved both in 2004.
The San Diego office has received generally high marks. Voters there have made it permanent, regardless of whether the strong-mayor form of government continues past the end of this year. The office has a staff of 10 and a budget of more than $1.4 million a year.
San Diego’s budget is about three times larger than Sacramento’s. But analyst Andrea Tevlin says it would be “really tough” for an office of even three people to be effective. She questions whether the office makes sense without a strong mayor.
Sacramento’s council would be wise to heed those warnings. If council members decide an independent budget analyst is truly necessary, they should take the time to get it right.