Blog Posts
Budgeting Behind Closed Doors
dcogcadmin | August 4, 2009
The D.C. Council held a series of sessions last week to address budget gaps that had developed in the city’s fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010 budgets. Councilmembers negotiated, influenced each other, argued and compromised – and eventually agreed on what cuts would be made and where new revenue would come from (several taxes were raised).
But despite the important public work being done, these Council sessions were all but closed to the public. The press was admitted (see the blow-by-blow from WTOP’s Mark Segraves and Washington City Paper’s Mike DeBonis on Twitter), but the city’s residents, and the advocates who rely on budget dollars to perform vital services here, were not allowed into the room. The Washington Post has called for a review of the D.C. open meetings law, which requires openness only for meetings at which decisions are made – in this case, the session Friday during which the Council rubber-stamped its changes to the budget. A review of the open meetings law would be a good result from an otherwise disappointing situation; this budget process has delivered a blow to public engagement and undermined trust that D.C.’s political system will be responsive to the people.
The D.C. Council held a series of sessions last week to address budget gaps that had developed in the city’s fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010 budgets. Councilmembers negotiated, influenced each other, argued and compromised – and eventually agreed on what cuts would be made and where new revenue would come from (several taxes were raised).
But despite the important public work being done, these Council sessions were all but closed to the public. The press was admitted (see the blow-by-blow from WTOP’s Mark Segraves and Washington City Paper’s Mike DeBonis on Twitter), but the city’s residents, and the advocates who rely on budget dollars to perform vital services here, were not allowed into the room. The Washington Post has called for a review of the D.C. open meetings law, which requires openness only for meetings at which decisions are made – in this case, the session Friday during which the Council rubber-stamped its changes to the budget. A review of the open meetings law would be a good result from an otherwise disappointing situation; this budget process has delivered a blow to public engagement and undermined trust that D.C.’s political system will be responsive to the people.
