Suprise, suprise, Mayor has found some more money.

[shadows]

Many of the working poor of the city could be surprised to learn that many city departments have over budgeted their needs and now have a surplus of unspent funds that can be used by the mayor to pay his over paid staff.

In the charter change (presented as an amendment) the council was presented as being the "checks and balances" through their analyzing the budget submitted by the strong mayor.  Now it is published that city council has failed to establish the actual needs of many city departments and approved surplus funds that were not needed.   This could save the working poor on increasing fees (taxes). Under the municipal budgeting act this surplus of funds was intended to be deducted from the following year's department budget.  The procedure is set out under statute where any citizen or group of citizens can protest, if the state of Tulsa is one of the 57 states that the president has visited.

If the city needs additional funds the best place could to be found is in the over budgeting that seems to have become the status quo in Tulsa.
 

[RecycleMichael]

shadows should be forgiven for his obsession with all things City of Tulsa. If the city was under budget or over budget in any category, he would say it is bad for the "working poor".

The mayor is allowed to assign employees in positions within departments as he sees fit. Some of the departments have a surplus because he established a hiring freeze and there were some retirements.

He took advantage of the situation to place his appointees in open positions temporarily. It was legal and a creative, yet temporary solution. I believe he will not face the same problem next year under a budget he prepared.

[sgrizzle]

He took advantage of the situation to place his appointees in open positions temporarily. It was legal and a creative, yet temporary solution. I believe he will not face the same problem next year under a budget he prepared.

If I was one of those department heads who found a way to get under budget only to have the surplus stripped because of a pissing match between the Mayor and the Council, I would be pretty ticked off.

[Hoss]

OK, who has taken over Shadows account?  I count two lucid posts in a row now.  Has hell froze over?

[tulsa_fan]

If I was one of those department heads who found a way to get under budget only to have the surplus stripped because of a pissing match between the Mayor and the Council, I would be pretty ticked off.

I agree, especially when those departments found ways to be under budget through layoffs.  I don't recall the mayor laying ANYONE from his department off.  It may be "legal" but shady to say the least.  I've spent a LOT of time looking at the mayor's office budget and spending based on the financials submitted to the council.  The spending increased by 20k a month once he took over, that isn't because he took a salary. 

[shadows]

OK, who has taken over Shadows account?  I count two lucid posts in a row now.  Has hell froze over?

A budget is submitted for the amount of money needed to perform the duties of single departments.  Such money belongs also to the working poor and is not production money for a saleable item.  If it is found out that citizens provided excess money such money is not free money to be distributed elsewhere.  Provisions were made by intelligent representatives to secure the taxpayers money by limitations placed on it to be carried on into future budget by reducing the taxpayers obligation to the department by reducing the future budged by such amount.

The city auditors salary is affixed to a percentage of the mayor salary.  In the promotion of the charter change there was never indications that future city department heads would or could be paid near 1 ½ times the mayor as CEO of the state of Tulsa.  Mark Fisher in his article in TW "Foreshadowing the rise and fall of the American empire?" points out we are following in the footsteps of the Roman empire as it began to collapse in the 2nd century.

Tea Party anyone?     

[Hoss]

A budget is submitted for the amount of money needed to perform the duties of single departments.  Such money belongs also to the working poor and is not production money for a saleable item.  If it is found out that citizens provided excess money such money is not free money to be distributed elsewhere.  Provisions were made by intelligent representatives to secure the taxpayers money by limitations placed on it to be carried on into future budget by reducing the taxpayers obligation to the department by reducing the future budged by such amount.

The city auditors salary is affixed to a percentage of the mayor salary.  In the promotion of the charter change there was never indications that future city department heads would or could be paid near 1 ½ times the mayor as CEO of the state of Tulsa.  Mark Fisher in his article in TW "Foreshadowing the rise and fall of the American empire?" points out we are following in the footsteps of the Roman empire as it began to collapse in the 2nd century.

Tea Party anyone?     

OK, never mind...he's back.

[shadows]

shadows should be forgiven for his obsession with all things City of Tulsa. If the city was under budget or over budget in any category, he would say it is bad for the "working poor".

The mayor is allowed to assign employees in positions within departments as he sees fit. Some of the departments have a surplus because he established a hiring freeze and there were some retirements.

He took advantage of the situation to place his appointees in open positions temporarily. It was legal and a creative, yet temporary solution. I believe he will not face the same problem next year under a budget he prepared.

Yep; the assignment of former mayors are reflected in the "Black Officers Suite" which the present mayor settled at cost of millions of dollars to the city because of the LEGALLY appointing with in departments.  Once a person gets a whiff of that pink gas upon entering city hall they seem to have  trouble getting their balance. 
Budgets are derived from the taxes and fees assessed against the working poor.  Cities do not generate any money.  In fact a former city hall has deprecated over 80% since it was put up for sale.

Do you like your tea warm or cold at the coming tea party?

[rwarn17588]

shadows should be forgiven for his obsession with all things City of Tulsa. If the city was under budget or over budget in any category, he would say it is bad for the "working poor".

That's a pretty good assessment of shadows, actually. To shadows, whatever the city does, whether it's resurfacing streets, diverting floodwater away from homes or hiring a dogcatcher, it's bad for the working poor. 

[Gaspar]

Define "Working Poor."

[Cats Cats Cats]

Define "Working Poor."

In part of the incoherent post I did get the point that...  There is a reason why there are budgets.  Just because your department went under budget doesn't mean the city should spend the money just because they have it.  As far as the "department heads" being pissed that they had a surplus.  It isn't like they get to keep it.

[Gaspar]

In part of the incoherent post I did get the point that...  There is a reason why there are budgets.  Just because your department went under budget doesn't mean the city should spend the money just because they have it.  As far as the "department heads" being pissed that they had a surplus.  It isn't like they get to keep it.

Oh, You gotta know the rules by now. . .
 
Rule #1  You never do anything under budget, or else you risk setting a precedent that will cause subsequent budgets to be reduced.
 
Rule #2 Only break rule #1 if you have intentions of running for higher office, or looking for another job.

Rule #3 If you have a department under you, that comes in under budget, start looking for a replacement for that department head.  If it is an elected position, watch your back.

[Conan71]

In part of the incoherent post I did get the point that...  There is a reason why there are budgets.  Just because your department went under budget doesn't mean the city should spend the money just because they have it.  As far as the "department heads" being pissed that they had a surplus.  It isn't like they get to keep it.

I've worked with Federal, as well as multiple state and municipal governments in my career.

I cannot count how many times I've gotten a call that started: "I've got funds I need to spend by the end of the year or they will be taken out of my budget next year."

Unfortunately, government takes the myopic view that if a department isn't using all their funds they take it away the next year.  Department heads worry they might go over budget the following year and not have enough to cover, especially if their allotment is cut back.  It's not uncommon to have a particular department stocked up on 2-3 years supplies or spare parts because they are afraid they won't be able to get what they need the following year or year after, nor have the money to cover unforseen circumstances.

There's not enough incentive for department heads to make voluntary cuts in their budgets.  Everyone protects their own little fiefdom fiercely.  They only way to make them shrink is by force.

[nathanm]

Unfortunately, government takes the myopic view that if a department isn't using all their funds they take it away the next year.  Department heads worry they might go over budget the following year and not have enough to cover, especially if their allotment is cut back.  It's not uncommon to have a particular department stocked up on 2-3 years supplies or spare parts because they are afraid they won't be able to get what they need the following year or year after, nor have the money to cover unforseen circumstances.

Having done work for a city in the past, I can attest that the worry you refer to is 100% real. Thus, if you need a new computer next year, it's better to buy it this year if you can.

I agree that it's stupid that this has to be done, but I don't know what exactly you think the department heads could do differently. Change on this would have to come from the top.

FWIW, the same thing also happens in private companies large enough to have departments with separate budgets.

[shadows]

Having done work for a city in the past, I can attest that the worry you refer to is 100% real. Thus, if you need a new computer next year, it's better to buy it this year if you can.

I agree that it's stupid that this has to be done, but I don't know what exactly you think the department heads could do differently. Change on this would have to come from the top.

FWIW, the same thing also happens in private companies large enough to have departments with separate budgets.

In private industry the budget is installed as a cap and is audited for any misuse or fraud within the system.   In the municipal budget it was established to provide protection and secure for a normal way of life.

The question dwells who's money it being budgeted.  Is it the taxpayers or that of private industry? 

Near half of the working force in Tulsa, including city employees, have chosen to get live out of town because it is cheaper.  Those things that are illegal in the other part of the state are overlooked in the city.