Towards Responsible City Spending

As I was completing the required London Free Press election questionnaire this evening, it occurred to me that I ought to take a few moments and spell out some of my thoughts on how the city should look at the spending of its tax dollars. All-candidates meetings, awkwardly-worded questionnaires from a variety of interest groups, all anxious to promote a particular point of view, and campaign literature, with its horizontal targeting, seldom give one the opportunity to speak in depth about such an important issue.

I think that the City has developed careless habits in its spending and that these habits pose a fundamental threat to its fiscal sustainability over the short-, medium-, and long-term. I want to participate in the creation of a city that is healthy, safe, prosperous and affordable because it’s the right thing to do and because the generations that follow us expect us to do it. To do otherwise is to leave as a legacy to our children a city that is “broke” – fiscally, physically, and morally.

Everything must be on the table: alternate ways of doing business, the best practices of other cities, new budgeting models, changes in organizational structure, and so on....

Having said that, I’ve followed Council as closely as an outsider can in this day and age (and, more particularly, in this city) over the past two-and-a-half terms. I think that city departments have done a good job, generally, in controlling core operating expenses. Most departments routinely meet their annual spending caps.

I’m unconvinced that the same can be said for its agencies, boards, and commissions.

Of course, the majority of spending the city does is non-discretionary – Ontario Works, debt servicing, protective services core budgets, and a long list of other mandated spending requirements. Only about one dollar in three (or perhaps even four) is actually under the control of Council – a reality that’s overlooked by those advocating long-term tax freezes (well, characterizing this as “overlooked” might be my act of charity for the day).

I’m sure that many special interest groups, anxious to advance their own agendas by trying to put candidates in “boxes”, will characterize me as a “progressive”. I am. And I’m proud of it. I want our city to get better and do better.

But let me spell out, in clear and certain terms, how I view responsible city spending: each and every tax expenditure must pass a “smell” test. If the expenditure doesn’t improve our quality of life, contribute to our economic well-being, or renew our infrastructure, in the most efficient and measurable way possible, I’m going to be all over it. And I'm good at getting all over an issue - I've had to be to lead the positive changes underway in my neighbourhood. Nothing has been given to us. We've had to fight for just about every single thing we've accomplished.

All spending, not just year-over-year increases, must be justified on the basis of demonstrated VALUE FOR MONEY.

So, I view the path towards sensible city spending as a being a dual track really: firstly, elected officials need to be seriously diligent in their oversight of all spending. Each tax dollar must be treated as a scarce resource. The current tax load is a real and legitimate concern to large numbers of our fellow citizens, especially (but not only) those living on a fixed income or without permanent employment. Secondly, elected officials need to get to a place where they are seen to be diligent and conscientious guardians of the public purse by the people who are filling this purse for them. This will take the cultivation of habits that are generally difficult for politicians – consistency, respect for one other, thinking outside the box, looking past one’s ideological blinders, and so on. We won’t get there so long as, for example, the orgy of public spending of the year end surplus (which really isn’t a “surplus” at all, but an accounting miscalculation) on pet projects is allowed to continue unchallenged. These funds should always be applied to tax relief or debt repayment, as a matter of policy, because if the annual assessment growth – where the majority of this “surplus” comes from - is underestimated, and at the year end the city is in deficit, we all know who will be footing the bill for this miscalculation.

Anyone who watches the antics at Council knows that many spending decisions are “political”. Put a few people in the gallery. Have the right people whisper a few words in the ears of the right councilors. Claim that a particular expenditure is necessary to advance a public policy goal or legislative requirement, without really showing why.

There is a good reason why, to observers casual and otherwise, many spending decisions appear to be ad hoc. It’s because they are. And they shouldn’t be.