One thing to add to Bob's analysis on the CIB process is that there is a set amount of budget dollars allocated to the Capital Improvement Budget. This is only a small fraction of the overall annual City budget. So these citizens are not deciding on department budgets or police, fire etc.
John Mannillo Downtown and Highland Park ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Spaulding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [StPaul] Citizen Participation in Budgeting > Every other year, when the biannual CIB process starts, district > councils directly appoint representatives to participate. District > Councils can appoint folks to one of three subcommittees: Community > Facilities, Streets and Utilities, and Residential and Economic > Development. I have participated once in the Community Facilities > Subcommittee. One level above the subcommittees, there is a core CIB > Committee, which is in continuous existence. The Committee is > appointed by the Mayor, composed of people who are appointed by the > Mayor to represent state legislative districts. The Mayor is > technically obligated to choose among recommended choices of the > district councils in the district, and consider the recommendation of > the legislators. > > Anyone can propose a CIB project. Proposers come to make their case at > the CIB subcommittee level. The subcommittee meets for two months to > review projects, and takes a tour of the projects at the end. Over the > years, citizens have pinned down a very rigorous system of review for > the projects submitted - weighing them each carefully and awarding > points based on their merits in something like 30 categories. The > subcommittee prioritizes the projects and hands that on to the overall > CIB Committee > > Th CIB Committee takes the subcommittee prioritization of projects, > tweaks them makes monetary recommendations to the Mayor, who then > passes that onto the Council for approval. Then, the Mayor has the > authority to extract from the budget any project he or she doesn't > like. > > Like so much else district councils do, the CIB Committee can only make > recommendations - the Mayor, and the City Council can change or tinker > with the recommendations. And even the Mayor's appointees to the CIB > Committee, as I found out, can disagree strongly with his/her > priorities. Under St. Pau's system, how carefully the Committee's > work is considered ultimately depends on who our elected > representatives are, and how accountable we all hold them. > > Should the CIB committee's recommendations stand without tinkering? > Would there be a way to make their recommendations stronger under the > current system? I think the overriding sense of the CIB committee I > served with was an honest disappointment that the recommendation wasn't > taken seriously. Looking at the positive, there is at least there is a > group of citizens who makes a determination, and can then hold our > elected officials accountable for their actions. Other cities aren't > so lucky. (For more info see > http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/ofs/cib/) > > *** > > DISTRICT COUNCILS, CIB, and STAR versus NRP: > > I'm not qualified to speak on the intracacies NRP's process. NRP > doesn't fund exactly the same things as district councils, the CIB > process or STAR grants. But there is overlap among all. > > But I can say the overriding difference is this: in Saint Paul, > district councils historically only "make recommendations" - they are > advisory. Seldom are district councils mentioned in any official > capacity. District councils recommend through the CIB process, and can > make informal recommendations regarding STAR grant priorities. As > such, the power of district councils in St. Paul really depends on how > strongly they organize to promote their vision or agenda, and then work > through the appropriate officials to make it a reality. > > In Minneapolis, NRP funds are effectively given to each neighborhood to > prioritize and actually distribute, within certain constraints. Its a > bit more akin to having many mini-city councils across the City. > Sometimes the constraints on giving out the money are political in > nature - such as a current requirement that something like 45% of the > NRP Phase II money go to support affordable housing. Of course, this > decentralization has some downsides too, and a critique of Minneapolis' > decentralization (in general) can be found in this week's StarTribune > (http://www.startribune/opinion). > > *** > > A VERY DIFFERENT APPROACH: CHICAGO. > > A while back I also worked for a group in Chicago whose founding > purpose was to reform the Capital Improvement Program's prioritization > process in that City. As you can imagine, in Chicago, with its > legendary machine politics, the power dynamics are quite different. > Until 15 years ago, there weren't even any significant public hearings > on the Capital Improvement priorities there. Without scrutiny, the > Mayor's projects rose easily to the top. Chicago Aldermen and > Alderwomen dole out money ward by ward, disproportionately to political > allies. > > Where citizen particpation and district councils are institutionalized > into both City's structure here, and funded by the City, in Chicago, > the modified ward machine still rules, and is occasionally held in line > by groups of especially feisty neighborhood organizations. But despite > the feistiness that existed neighborhood by neighborhood, there wasn't > a "superstructure" for the kinds of Citywide reform that would have > improved accountability on a broad level. The exception being the > organization I worked for (http://www.ncbg.org), and a couple others. > > Acccountability isn't built into the system the way it is here. > Chicago's system, with its lack of accountability and dependence on > local power produces a predictable and disturbing result. City > investments tend to concentrate disproportionately in the wealthier > areas of the City, starving the poorer (and often predominantly > minority) neighborhoods of the most basic funds they need to thrive. > Industry doesn't locate in places where a prevalence 12' viaducts > routinely prevent transportational access. A neighborhood without > streetlights, or with giant holes in the sidewalk tends to fall apart > even more. > > A secondary threat in Chicago is that Capital Improvement money becomes > "pork barrel" money. That is (I suspect) one key reason why we decided > to inject public scrutiny into the process here, and rightfully so. > > *** > > The district council role in the CIB process is specifically outlined > in City Code - the power to appoint a committee that has the power to > recommend. Technically, of course, nothing is stopping them district > councils stepping up to the plate now to make coordinated > recommendations right now. > > But without a nice bump in funding, and a new structure for involvement > in this budgeting that came in some official capacity, district > councils engaging a larger budget process wouldn't produce a meaningful > result. > > But if its important to enough knowledgeable citizens to conceive of > such a process, and actively take on the advocacy for creating it, > there is no reason that conversation couldn't begin right now. > > Bob Spaulding > Downtown Saint Paul > > _____________________________________________ > To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ____________________________________________ > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > Archive Address: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ > > _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
