This time Rasansky has a point

Faithful readers probably have figured out I'm usually not in agreement with Dallas City Council member Mitchell Rasansky. But today I must agree with him. During a council briefing session, the original agenda of which contained a item for a budget presentation that never happened, Rasansky slammed Mayor Tom Leppert for not having an adequate debate on the budget.

"Mayor, it's a travesty what you did," Rasansky said.

Here's what the council member is peeved about. Monday was set aside as a day the council members were supposed to submit their individual amendments to the city manager's proposed budget. What actually happened, however, was this. I don't know if it was a shrewd piece of political maneuvering to cut the amendment process off at the pass or what, but City Manager Mary Suhm revealed she had somehow found $2.7 million extra the council could play with. So the Monday's amendment meeting became not "How do we amend the proposed budget," but "How do we spend that extra $2.7 million." That task was handed over to council member Ron Natinsky who, with the advanced approval of the majority of the council, came up with a plan for the $2.7 million. Then, at Monday's meetings, Mayor Leppert ruled that Natinsky's idea would be the base from which all other amendment options would be considered. In other words, the budget couldn't be amended, only Natinsky's plan for spending the $2.7 million could be amended.

This appeared to catch Rasansky and fellow council member Angela Hunt off guard. They wanted to discuss the entire budget, not just the extra $2.7 million. They tried to introduce some amendments, but these suggestions seemed only to confuse their fellow council members, because they didn't seem to fit the Natinsky plan. The problem was both Rasansky and Hunt offered their ideas as a take-it-or-leave-it package. You accepted them all or you accepted none. At that point it seemed easier to accept none. Another mistake they made was not offering ideas for balancing that budget with their amendments. If you want to propose, for example, cutting iMedia's $50,000 supplement, then you must say what you want to do with that $50,000. If you want to add $500,000 to street repair, you must also say where that money will be taken from.

At its agenda meeting one week from today, the city council must approve a budget for the next fiscal year. If I were Mr. Rasasnky or Ms. Hunt, I would force the issue. I would insist that I have the opportunity to introduce each of my suggested changes to the budget one at a time, have a discussion on each of them individually, and force and up or down vote on each. Then perhaps we will get the complete discussion and debate on the budget Mr. Rasansky is calling for.

More than likely, I will probably disagree with every single one of Mr. Rasansky's proposals, but at least he should have the opportunity to get them presented in a public forum. It's called democracy.