Editorial

Farewell MARB?

As we enter the beginnings of the budget-making process, culminating in a proposed municipal spending plan in March, we are brought to the realization that this might be the last such document that will be under the immediate watchful eye of the Municipal Accountability Review Board. Here since December of 2017, there have been indications from the board and from the administration of Mayor Dorinda Borer that the time of direct oversight might be ending. We hope so.

This publication has been critical of the MARB for years in much of its handling of the city’s financial restructuring. While we understood the reason for the strictures, we were sometimes angered by the severe lack of empathy. The impact MARB decisions had on taxpayers seemed to be secondary considerations with implementation being at the least matter of fact, while at the worst uncaring.

With the potential exit of the oversight panel we have some concerns, not with the leaving of the MARB, but with the lasting impact changes made through the seven-plus-year stint will have on the way the city does business. Changes have been made, but we wonder if cultural quirks within City Hall have been curbed or eliminated. We have recent history on which to base those concerns.

A state review panel was established for the city in 1992, when it became obvious the budget passed by the City Council through default was causing a $17 million gap. Emergency legislation gave the city the funding and put us on a three-year timeout, with the review board making many of the decisions. Budgets were fixed, contracts were altered, and the term of the review board lapsed into history. Everyone at the time thought the city had learned its lesson.

Over the next two decades the lessons learned were quickly forgotten and new unhealthy habits were acquired. The most egregious was filling budgetary gaps with bonded funds that were earmarked for municipal projects. Projects were proposed, bonds were set. Yet, through sleights of hand through the funding process or the fees included in the bonding, funds were diverted to fill gaps. This led to a bloated bond structure with millions spent on debt service.

This was only one problem, the other was the unwillingness of the political class to play fairly with the taxpayers and increase the mill rate when costs rose. There are only two ways to balance a budget: raise taxes or cut staff and services. Many times, neither were done.

Add to it slip-shod practices in the handling of purchases, failing to pay debts in a timely manner and other fiscal problems, and we found ourselves back at square one with the MARB coming into the city when, once again, we asked the state to fill a budget gap.

The point is the city has had two chances to right itself under supervision. The first time it went right back into its old habits, and we found ourselves in fiscal crisis yet again.

Fiscal discipline is one of the hallmarks of the Borer Administration, but it must go beyond that. The culture of City Hall, guided by the changes made in the last several years, must be part of the fabric of the of our business culture. To do otherwise means we start the same process again, which will lead to fiscal insolvency.

Are the lessons learned and are they part of our fiscal culture? That is the question that will not be answered in the short term. We thought so the first time. We can only wait and see.