Budget Next Steps: Preserving Gains that Were Made

by Paul Hogarth, 2009-07-06

Despite legitimate concerns, last week’s “add-back” process at the Board of Supervisors was historic. Over forty three million dollars of Mayor Newsom’s budget that cut vital services and privatized City jobs were stopped dead in its tracks. A variety of community based programs were saved, some of which are spelled out in this article. It’s important to identify the good that came out of this process, as we face an uncertain future of state budget cuts – and a Mayor who can make “mid-year adjustments” at will. Progressives can take two immediate next steps to protect the gains that have been made. The first is to rally support behind Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi’s proposal to put certain programs that should have been cut (like the Mayor’s P.R. team) on “conditional reserve,” so that these items – and not the “add-backs” – are the first to go when the City makes cuts down the road. The second is a Charter Amendment that will be heard in today’s Rules Committee – which puts real teeth in the appropriation process. Rather than lament an imperfect process for a budget that is far from perfect, here are the next steps …

What the $43.7 Million in Add-Backs Mean

After a grueling process of hearings and negotiations, the Board of Supervisors’ Budget Committee restored $43.7 million through the “add-back” process – making adjustments to the Mayor’s budget proposal. Budget Chair John Avalos had previously said they had $85 million in desired “add-backs,” and the Board made $82 million in “symbolic cuts” to the interim budget – a placeholder document until the City passes a formal budget at the end of the month. In other words, the Supervisors got half of what they wanted. In past years, the “add-backs” were in the $30 million range – making this number historic.

Naturally, there’s a lot of anxiety about how secure these restorations will be. The good news is that $20 million was to reject Mayor Newsom’s proposed privatization of City workers. Under Proposition J (which passed in November 1976), the Board of Supervisors must consent to such “outsourcing” – which makes this restoration safe. The security guards at SF General Hospital and the Asian Art Museum, along with Jail Health Service employees, cannot lose their jobs without the Mayor coming back to the Board for permission. Expect this to be an annual political fight, but it’s a done deal for now.

What else was good in the “add-back” process? Over 80% of what the Mayor cut out of the Department of Children, Youth and Families was restored. This money will fund community based programs that do violence prevention (like the Safety Network), youth employment opportunities, teen programs, immigrant services and the Family Resources Center. The Budget Committee also put $200,000 into additional programs.

Public Health got $12.5 million back, which at first doesn’t sound like much given the scale of Department cuts. But compare it with the list of Beilenson cuts, and you’ll see how far that money goes. Restorations include: (a) practically all the cuts to HIV treatment, counseling and housing, (b) $8 million to mental health and substance abuse programs – distributed through dozens of non-profit health clinics, (c) $100,000 for Drug Court – which connects minor offenders to services, long before the Community Justice Center, (d) places like Central City Older Adults that take patients before they get severely mentally ill, and (e) the SRO Collaboratives are back to where they were before mid-year cuts.

There are $4.1 million in restorations to the Human Services Agency, which include (a) a homeless drop-in center for women in the Mission, (b) money for Ellis Act eviction defense, (c) five positions at the Department to help clients get SSI eligibility, (d) four positions to help clients on Food Stamps, (e) keeping three large homeless shelters open all day, and (f) $914,000 to supportive housing providers (i.e., non-profit SRO’s.)

$2.75 million was restored to Parks & Recreation. Six lifeguards at Hamilton Pool are safe, 32 employees at various rec centers won’t be laid off and the Arboretum will remain free. The Office of Labor Standards Enforcement was spared over $500,000 in cuts – funding essential to enforce the minimum wage and paid sick days.

When the Board passed a housing inspection fee last month, they thought the new revenue would saving five Inspectors facing pink slips. But with DBI’s finances, we were informed it could not restore those jobs. So the Supervisors funded the five positions through the “add-back” process.

Newsom won’t be Mayor in the next decade if San Francisco suffers the consequences of a U.S. Census undercount, but he will be around long enough to oversee what kind of job the City does to help with reaching “hard to count” populations. The Mayor’s budget severely under-funded such efforts – the Supervisors kicked in $570,000. And the Police Commission will now get a new policy analyst to effectively do its job.

All of these “add-backs” make a real difference in peoples’ lives – and the next step is to ensure that the Mayor will not take them out in mid-year cuts. The state budget will wreak havoc on San Francisco, and Newsom has a bad track record of not spending “add-back” money that Supervisors put in the budget. According to Budget Analyst Harvey Rose, only 41% of “add-backs” last year got spent – because the Mayor cut them for his self-proclaimed mid-year solutions. When the crisis hits, the Supervisors may be powerless to stop him.

Using the Budget Process to Demand Accountability

At last week’s Budget Committee, Chair John Avalos and Board President David Chiu handed out a letter they got the Mayor to write – promising to “collaborate” with the Supervisors if mid-year cuts are necessary. But the letter makes very few promises. Newsom said he would “issue a report … detailing [his] proposal” to the Supervisors, which does not appear very different from what he did in December. As some Board members warned, the Mayor has made such promises in the past.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi proposed a motion – which at the time failed to get a second – to put some of the Mayor’s pet projects “on reserve.” Specifically, he suggested half of the press secretaries, the Mayor’s Greening Director and Education Czar, the head of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, the Community Justice Center and $2 million in the 311 Call Center. None of these were cut in the budget, although I have written before that they should be. “This is not a de-appropriation,” explained Mirkarimi. “It is simply to put [these projects] on reserve, something that we’re able to leverage pending on what does occur in the next several months … It is a leveraged discussion, hedging against the unknown.”

There was reluctance at last week’s Budget Committee to move forward on this, but it is a prudent approach. The Board can only de-appropriate funds to stop the Mayor from spending money, but they cannot force him to spend appropriated funds. Short of the more confrontational move of de-funding Newsom’s pet projects, a conditional reserve could give Supervisors leverage when the Mayor proposes mid-year cuts – and could protect some “add-back” victories. Right now, it appears Mirkarimi will introduce this at next week’s Full Board meeting on July 14th – before the final budget is approved.

I’m a bit nervous, frankly, about that being too late. In July 2007, Supervisor Chris Daly proposed some last-minute changes to the budget at the Full Board – which failed to even get a second. Granted, at the time Daly had alienated many of his colleagues – but there was concern by even some progressive Supervisors that it was unwise to propose major amendments to the budget at the Full Board. Gerardo Sandoval told me at the time he didn’t second the motion because it hadn’t gone through the Budget Committee. If Mirkarimi’s motion is going forward next week, there must be a lobbying effort by those who care about protecting the “add-back” victories to firm up votes at the Full Board level.

Changing the Budget Rules

Of course, the bigger problem here is the amount of power the City Charter gives the Mayor in the budget process. In 2007, a veto-proof majority of Supervisors appropriated $33 million in affordable housing. Rather than sign or veto the legislation, Newsom refused to spend the money – and got away with it. This is not a right that every Executive has. U.S. Presidents have been sued for “impounding” funds that Congress had appropriated, such as when Richard Nixon would not spend EPA funds or Ronald Reagan refused to spend HUD money. Isn’t it time to put some reasonable restriction on the Mayor’s discretion?

At today’s Rules Committee meeting, Supervisor Chris Daly will introduce a Charter Amendment that would allow the Board of Supervisors to “mandate” that the Mayor spend certain specified appropriated funds. The Mayor would be free to veto the legislation – but an 8-3 majority vote at the Board could override the veto and require the money to be spent. The Charter Amendment would be on the November ballot, and Newsom is rumored to make its defeat his top priority (besides running for Governor.)

If this was any other Mayor who did not flaunt our system of checks and balances – and who had a better relationship with the Board of Supervisors – such a Charter Amendment would not be necessary. But with mid-year budget cuts being all but inevitable later this year, and an unprecedented $43.7 million in “add-backs” that save crucial services that people rely on, now is not the time to take risks. If we are going to protect the programs that were saved in this year’s budget process, now is the time to support this measure.