« It happened somewhat the same way here | Main | Mike Huckabee is right, but don't listen too closely »
December 20, 2007
Using discretion with expenses
Two stories surfaced almost a week ago in the local media, and, as far as I know, they have escaped commentary in the "after-marketplace of ideas." Then again, I never listen to talk radio, so maybe the subject came up there.
The first item had to do with an increase in the amount each Hamilton County Commissioner receives per quarter for expenses. It seems that the budget voted on earlier this year that contained a 26-cent property tax increase also raised the quarterly expense check by 122 percent, from $900 to $2000. That's not the shocking part.
The only commissioner who seems to have clearly known of the increase's existence is then-Chairman Larry Henry (R-7th). Commissioners Richard Casavant (R-2nd) and Jim Coppinger (R-3rd) were apparently in the dark, as they raised questions when they received the much-larger checks. The article also states that there was no public discussion prior to the vote.
It's good that some of the commissioners have raised their eyebrows, and that they have stated an intent to itemize expenses and to thus forego the blanket amount; but it's terrible that they were not aware that they voted to approve this nearly $40,000 per year increase.
+++
Now, the second story: When I read its headline on Sunday morning, I at first thought that the daily paper had done a follow-up to the expenses story above. But it turns out that this was a piece about discretionary monies funded by bond issues -- $100,000 to each commissioner, twice, for a total of $1.8M -- and the reluctance of some to spend theirs, as contrasted with the gleeful ability of others to throw some money around.
Drew Johnson, who heads the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, is quoted in the article with a suggestion to lower tax rates instead of spending the funds. By contrast, Commissioner Curtis Adams (R-8th) "said he likes to get discretionary funds to recipients as soon as he can." (Interestingly, Adams is also highlighted in the expense-account piece for spending heavily on his district office.)
Most of the commissioners have spent quite a bit more of their 2008 money than they have of the 2006 allocation. Why, you ask? There are very few restrictions on the newer fund, while the 2006 fund must be spent on long-term projects that benefit the public at large (theoretically, by being on public property) and go through a bidding process. (Why aren't the 2008 funds restricted the same way? I ask you to help me find out. I only have so much time.)
I think there must be a balance somewhere between the Drew Johnson approach, where absolutely no help can be provided to a representative's constituent communities; and the Curtis Adams approach, where one gets the impression of a bacon-haulin' daddy strolling the streets of East Ridge and racking up all kinds of political favor.
Related: State Rep. Susan Lynn's (R-Mt. Juliet) take on a similar situation at the state level.
Government | By joe lance | 02:15 PM