- adjective \tran(t)s-ˈper-ənt\
- characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices.
Within Government, other than ethics, there is nothing more important than transparency. All money being spent is not the Government's, but belongs solely to the people you represent. As a result, the public has a clear right to know how money is being spent - and why. Additionally there are very strict rules around procurement requiring competitive bidding and an open process to ensure fairness. Lastly, South Orange has a very strict anti-"pay to play" ordinance to ensure that vendors comply with regulations and disclosures around campaign contributions. To facilitate this, the Village Budget has been posted to the Village website at least since I have been in office, the list of all Bills paid is posted to the Village website and all meetings to discuss the Budget are open to the public and the minutes are posted to the Village website. However, lately the word "transparency" is being thrown around a lot, yet words are cheap and action is what really matters. I'd like to highlight three recent examples pertaining to:
- claims of "budget transparency"
- lack of transparency regarding the relocation of the Rescue Squad
- criticism on transparency around the Village Hall renovation project
"Budget Transparency"
Recently, an article appeared on the Village website stating that there will be "a budget tool launching this week, putting all of the Village's budget data in an easy to read, visual format". While that sounds nice on the surface and Mr. Torpey has raised this suggestion as an idea in prior meetings, there was never any discussion among the Board of Trustees about whether there was even a need for this software and if so, what the requirements for it would be. Going even further, a bid or RFP was never issued for the software and the award of a contract for this vendor was never even brought forth for review or voted on by the BOT. As a result, I found it shocking to learn that this expenditure (estimated to be nearly $3000 ANNUALLY) was made without public or Board of Trustees discussion or approval. Quite ironic for software that is alleged to "improve transparency".
While it is easy to dismiss an expenditure as small, with our obscene taxes, every expenditure matters and should be scrutinized to ensure it is something we really truly need or will be used by a large portion of the community. The reality is that there is nobody clamoring for this and with the same money, we could simply spend less (shocking, I know!) or spend the money on something that would be utilized or appreciated by hundreds (or even thousands) of people, such as additional downtown concerts or beautification across the Village with new plantings or flowers, as just two of countless possible examples.
Nobody would argue with a goal of "transparency", but in this case it is nothing more than a nice talking point without any value to the taxpayer. There are so many anomalies with the Municipal Budget that simply looking at a line chart is meaningless without proper context. For example, there was a time in the past when line items were moved from the Capital Budget to the annual Operating Budget, so in that example, a line item in each budget could take a huge swing that year. Without that context, a chart will raise more questions than it answers. In addition, trying to answer certain questions, such as "how much money goes to SOPAC" is difficult to answer with a line chart since that operating subsidy is under "Recreation" (and additional funds are covered separately within the annual debt service and additional funds are also part of the rent that Clearview is supposed to pass through to the Village), which most people simply wouldn't know, nor does this tool even get to that level of detail. Asking "can we pave more roads" is not feasible because that is addressed within the Capital Budget and is not represented in this tool. Asking about the impact of hiring "x" more people in a given department is not feasible because most departments are covered by collective bargaining and a certain position may have a starting salary of say $30k that rapidly rises to over $90k in just 5 years. Without the context of these "steps", again it is infeasible and meaningless to draw any conclusions from a simplistic graphing tool. There are countless other examples, but the bottom-line is that this is simply a costly solution in search of a problem that simply doesn't exist and calling something transparent, simply does not make it so.
Relocation of the Rescue Squad
As an additional concern about Transparency, the Village is currently in the process of trying to identify a location for the Rescue Squad, which needs to be moved due to the upcoming redevelopment of that site next year by Jonathan Rose. Over the past few months, a number of sites were explored, but recently the Board of Trustees was told that two Village-owned properties were the likely candidates. Since the properties are both already owned by the Village, one would think a public discussion of developing Village-owned property would occur so that the whole community, and especially any potentially impacted neighbors, could be informed. Despite a request by Trustee Gould at the March 28, 2013 Meeting to have this topic discussed in public, Mr. Torpey reassigned it to "Executive Session", which is not open to the public. The exemptions to the Open Public Meeting Act that are allowed to be discussed in Executive Session are quite limited by State Law and this situation certainly doesn't seem to fall under any of them. Once again, this lack of transparency is simply unfair to the public who have the right to see the deliberative process, and certainly unfair to the neighbors who have a right to know if the Village is planning to develop property near their home.
Village Hall renovation project
Lastly, the pending Village Hall renovation project will be one of the most expensive projects ever undertaken by the Village. It is imperative that the public be kept abreast of the mounting expenses and the anticipated budget and timeline as we go. I initially shared a public presentation in December 2011 with baseline estimates of over $5M for the project and for the past several months have been requesting that the Construction Manager provide an updated public presentation of where we are today. When that never happened, I updated the presentation and shared it at the April 8 Board of Trustees Meeting with all information that we know as of today to let the public know that this project has now morphed to a $7.1M project - and it hasn't even started, yet. I was criticized by Mr. Torpey and told that this was my "opinion". However, I'll let the facts and numbers speak for themselves. I will also defend the need, actually the right, of taxpaying residents to be provided this information frequently and without the "spin" that is far too common these days in South Orange.
The video of the presentation can be viewed below:
While my term in office is winding down, I will continue to call out clear offenses of transparency (during my term and beyond) and I urge the competing candidates for the Board of Trustees to pledge to adhere to the absolute strictest standards of transparency (and ethics) should they have the honor to serve the community. We all deserve nothing less.
