Blogs

It happens this time of year in households all over the state.  Small children express their desire for a puppy at Christmas time.  Responsible adults, humane societies, and responsible dog clubs agree - the appropriate answer to this request should be "no".  Puppies are not for Christmas, they're for a lifetime.  Who is going to be responsible for feeding, cleaning, socializing and recreating the dog?  Important issues that must be addressed in a family and responsibilities that a child must demonstrate that they are prepared to take on.  Will the vet bills, food, and associated costs fit in the family budget?  Equally important.  That's the way it went at our house and we're glad we took the time to be sure our 7-year-old daughter was ready for that responsibility before a dog came in to the house.

When the council carefully considered what was important for the year 2008, with many budget review meetings and countless hours of council members pouring over the numbers, they decided that the greatest need for the police department was to hire a Community Service Officer who would ensure that property owners "toe the line".  That's it.  We can't tolerate someone putting their garbage can out too early or an inappropriately parked car.  That's what we chose to spend our money on for the coming year.

In the meantime, investigation of the possibility of a canine unit to address problems with drugs, locate missing persons, and for general community relations had been under way for the better part of the year.  Council members, the mayor, the city attorney, the PD, and the Parks Department were all part of the discussions and it seemed like everyone was pretty much in agreement that this could be a good thing for the city to do.  Somehow, that didn't get in to the proposed police budget - nor did the mayor or any council member ask the Chief to include 2008 funding for the unit at the Police budget meeting.  We all knew it was coming - but "we" weren't preparing for it financially.

The canine unit would have been a good program ... one I wholeheartedly believe in and could support ... but by the actions of the council and the Mayor, apparently this program was not worth funding for the upcoming year.  I think it was an unwise and unfortunate choice, but that's the decision which was made.  Apparently those of us who live here and already have a stake in the future of the city are a far greater threat to the "public image" of the community than gangs or drug dealers.  We're always told that you put your money where your heart is and our elected representatives clearly articulated what they believe to be the priority for 2008 - get the homeowners to comply.

Move the calendar forward to December 17, 2007, just a month after the budget is approved.  Discussions begin of how to fund the canine unit.  The new year and the new budget aren't even started and we're already trying to figure out how we can spend $30,000 that we didn't plan for.  They want a Christmas present and it happens to be a dog - not necessarily a puppy, but close enough that anyone watching with a critical eye can't help noticing the parallel.

Developing a workable budget and running a city within that budget takes a certain level of discipline; discipline that comes with maturity.  Writing a budget and then adding "I wants" less than 30 days later looks a lot more like the actions of a 6-year-old who wants a puppy for Christmas than the responsible and mature public servant ... at least it does in my eyes.

This is an opportunity for the taxpayers to affect change in the city.  Rather than spending on impulse, it's time now to spend consistent with your planning.  Taxpayers can either give the council positive reinforcement by supporting the bake sales and other fundraisers which will let the council "have it both ways" (election-year tax cut AND necessary program for the city), or they send a clear message to the city that they must do what all of us have to do in our personal lives.  Choose what's important and only spend what we can afford.

Here's the answer that "we the people" should give.  No.  If the mayor and the members of the council want something enough, they should be honest enough to the community and admit that it's a priority.  Then they should be prepared to pay for it within the budget - even if it means a much heralded tax cut in an election year may not be as sweet a treat to the voters.  Be honest, be accountable, and live within your means.

I wanted to bring a topic to your attention from last night's Menasha City Council meeting, not a part of the agenda - rather comments from the gallery when 'we the people' are allowed to address the Mayor & Council.

If we as a City can't make the streets safe, why are we bothering to spend dime one on anything else?  Nobody's going to want to live here!  I hope that the Council will weigh the value of every expenditure  for next year vs. the importance of putting more staff on the streets to make the city a safer and more desirable place to live.