Home

Public comment of the 2003 Union County Budget
by Joe Renna

The concept that the public can comment and actually have a say in drafting the budget reflects the greatness of our form of government in the United States and the brilliance of the formers of the constitution. It is a great opportunity to be able to speak as a private citizen on the most important issue effecting taxes and service. In reviewing the 2003 budget though, I can't help but conclude that this process has been twisted out of shape. The way the budget is presented does not invite public participation. In fact it seems to do just the opposite. This document is presented in such a way that the public is not given the information necessary to determine if the anticipated revenues are realistic or if appropriations are justified.

The document is vague and at times cryptic. The average person can never sort through the numbers and accounting that the budget represents. At the very least, the public should be able to look at practices and procedures in determining the budget. It is hard to believe that, after months of study, that it has been determined that taxes must be raised.

The public assumes that every possibility was considered before these budget decisions were made. The public trusts that the elected officials and county administration will do the right thing and act responsibly when it comes to taxing and spending. This budget runs counter to that belief. The budget not only contradicts statements that were made by our elected officials and administration, but the way in which it is presented seems deceptive. If the claim of the county is that the budget is the best that they could muster then I fear that the county government is damaged. It seems that it is operating with incompetence or no ethics. In either case, it's not good.

One does not have to be an accounting expert to question some of the items presented in the budget. The most questionable are those that defy logic or contradict statements made by county officials. To quote our freeholders, "The budget reflects the extraordinary difficult times we find ourselves in. These times demand great personal sacrifice and patriotism. The nation is at war and we face serious homeland security issues at the county level. We also remain in the midst of a persistent economic downturn." These are profound words and they should be given the ultimate consideration in developing the county budget.

This budget shows no indication that this statement was even considered. For instance in November of 2002 the freeholders and administrators gave themselves raises and promotions. The tens of thousands of dollars in raises were awarded retroactively. It is impossible to determine if these increases were in last years budget. Does this year's budget reflect any raises or promotions that will be made in the upcoming December?

None of the numbers presented in this budget give any weight to adjustments in last year's budget or to the reorganization that the county went through. The county shuffled departments around in an effort to run more efficiently. Positions were moved or new ones were created. The structure of government was changed and the number of employees working for each department is different, yet when the budget compares salaries and wages from last year to this it gives no indication of how many positions the amount represents.

For instance the Office of the County Manger has a salaries budget of $478,166 for 2003, compared to $478,002 in 2002. The budget also shows that $479,197 was actually paid out. These numbers don't jive. And it is disingenuous to suggest that the budget is an equal comparison of the two departments. This tactic is used throughout the budget. It is deceiving to the public and it makes it impossible to conduct a proper review. More vague than the salaries and wages line item is the "other expenses" line followed closely by "miscellaneous." How could the county ask the public to give their approval to appropriations that are arbitrarily presented?

There is also no indication of when money allocated to one department or project is used for another. This budget smacks of patronage and "pay for play" practices. I believe that the funds that are needed can be saved by bidding out the no bid aspects of the county contracts. Professional services contracts for people like attorneys, engineers and architects are not subject to bid law. At least 1/3 of these firms are contributors to the Democratic Committee responsible for the campaigns of our elected officials. If these contracts were negotiated even a few percentage points lower, the savings would probably be enough to avoid a tax increase. Instead, the county asks its employees, the rank and file of the workforce, to take days off without pay. This is outrageous. But, it is consistent with the thought process of this budget. The thought that a $27.5 million deficit was going to be fixed with the few hundred thousand dollars taken from employees is ridiculous.

There is no indication that any thing unnecessary was cut out of the budget. Is this to suggest that the county is running so efficiently that there is no waste? The county claims to be saving $250,000 by not buying new cars or another $250, 000 by not hiring any new employees. All the savings that are touted are not due to cutting waste but are attributed to not increasing spending.

It seems that this budget was designed in a vacuum. This is the third year that property taxes are being raised almost 10%. The county reasons this away by saying that if the increases are figured over the past six years then they would have only been 3% per year. Why stop at six years? go back to ten like it is illustrated in the beginning of the budget document.

This year's financial problems should have been no surprise. The two previous years should have predicted the problems that this year would be facing. There were no adjustments in this budget that corrected the problem. If anything comes out of this hearing it should be a warning to the public that next year will be business as usual and to expect another property tax hike from the county. The taxpayers are hit twice with these tax increases. Property tax is used for education and municipal government. The money taken from residents by the county through property taxes limits the resources available for municipality and education services. No one wants to pay high taxes, so cities and schools are held down by county tax raises.

There is news from Rahway that 8 police officers are being laid off and the schools are cutting back on teachers. This is to save a few hundred thousand dollars. At the same time the county is increasing their burden on the residents. This is going on in every municipality in the county. It is irresponsible and arrogant. This budget effects everyone. The landlords pass this tax increase onto the tenants and the businesses pass it onto the consumers. The people who are struggling financially have been hit the hardest.

The public is doubtful that they can make a difference in the budget process. I don't agree. I think people can make a difference. I think it would show great leadership to rethink this budget, cut the waste and spare the people an additional burden. It would show great leadership if this board demands of itself what it demands of the people: "Great personal sacrifice and patriotism."