Editor’s note: In July, the Clark County Charter Review Commission passed 10 amendments to be sent to the voter in the November General Election. One of those amendments was adopted by the Clark County Council, leaving nine to be determined by the voters.
Clark County Today wrote about all of the amendments back in July. In this updated series, Clark County Today is reposting highlights from those reports in July as well as noting some arguments for and against each amendment that appear in the Voters’ Pamphlet.
Proposed Charter Amendment No. 20: Revised Budget Transparency Process
This would require earlier and more transparent budget development and publication. It would require at least two public presentations of a preliminary budget earlier in the budget cycle.
Voters’ Pamphlet Argument For:
“A vote for a more open and public budget process is a vote for the responsible, transparent, and efficient use of taxpayer funds.”
“The amendment moves some county budget deadlines back slightly and requires the first public presentation of the proposed budget to be made the first week of September, a second presentation in October, and the final budget adoptions hearing be held in November. Moving the public presentation to this time will give the people better visibility to the county’s almost $900 million budget.”
Voters’ Pamphlet Argument Against:
“The County already follows state rules, deadlines, and budget requirements to make sure the budget is completed correctly and on time.”
“No charter amendment is needed because the Charter already allows this flexibility. County leaders and the County Council can add steps or set earlier deadlines if they want to.”
“Adding these details could make it harder for the county to improve the budget process in the future.”
Here are some of the highlights of what Clark County Today reported in July, when the commission passed the amendment:
It would also require the County Manager to publish budget preparation instructions, require county departments to submit budget-related information earlier in the budget cycle, and require that budget documents be posted on a public website. Finally, it would also require at least two public presentations of the preliminary budget earlier in the budget cycle.
This amendment was sponsored by Peter Silliman, commissioner from District 5. It passed 12-3.
Silliman opened his argument with a big number, more than $880 million. That was what the Clark County Council approved in December for the county’s annual budget. He said he believes most people in the county had no idea the budget was passed.
“That’s because the budget process and public involvement starts around November 1 and ends around December 1,” Silliman said.
Many people are involved in elections and then preparing for the holidays. The timeline, he said, gives people very little time to add their input.
“The public participation is minimal,” he said.
That could change with this amendment, ensuring the budget process begins in September.
“It follows a theme that people want,” Silliman said, and that is more budget transparency.
Public comment on the subject agreed.
“It would be a good thing to revise the budget process,” one said. “We need more transparency.”
In fact, that person noted that transparency seemed to be related to many of the amendments the review committee was considering.
“I’m seeing a pattern here,” the person said. “Transparency is the answer.”
Another noted that the proposed timeline will give citizens more opportunity to be involved in the process.
Comments
Loading comments…