This article is about some of the problems I see as a Finance Committee (FinCom) member with Acton's budgeting process. Simply put, I think our system is a mess and it isn't producing the desired result that I think the citizens want, which is some control over spending in town.

It is very difficult to boil everything down to a few sentences, but let me try.

Acton has a process that is different than most other towns. We have the three major boards that deal with budgets (FinCom, Board of Selectmen, and School Committees, both local and regional) and then we have a sort of hybrid group called the Acton Leadership Group (ALG). This group has no official role in the town Charter. Simply put, the ALG has mucked up the budget system very badly. It has taken away the "check and balance" that is supposed to be there.

It's taken me three years on the FinCom to figure out exactly why the system isn't working. Here is my take: ALG is setting spending limits for school and town, and because FinCom hasn't been doing its job of properly vetting the budgets, ALG's spending limits have turned into budgetary limits with virtually no control over total spending.

As ALG's role has grown, people have appreciated the cooperative nature of that process. Getting the three major boards to agree on spending limits is actually a good thing. So I don't think the ALG should be completely dismantled. But ALG cannot take FinCom's place, nor should it diminish FinCom's role. Its role must be carefully defined and controlled. But that's the subject of another article.

Where has FinCom been? To be charitable, they've been relegated to an advisory board that goes through the motions but makes no actual cuts to any budget. We have had some minor impact on a few items, but these are almost always on proposed new spending, and the minute something is taken off the spending list, there are 10 things waiting in line to move into that vacated position, so no actual money is ever saved.

Both school and town set budgets up to the limit every time. And those limits are rarely reduced by FinCom.

The March 18, 2008 FinCom meeting is a good example. The FinCom asked the ALG to transfer $380k from the schools to the town. This move was approved by the other major boards. The schools produced a budget that was $380k less than before by cutting 2-3 proposed new staff positions and realizing other savings. Yet no money is being saved, because the town will spend the $380k that the schools are cutting.

When I attempted a very modest additional cut of $160k from the $25 million local budget (about ½ of 1%), I got no support from other members of FinCom. There simply is very little will to make cuts in operating budgets.

In other towns, the budget process is messier. The major boards argue, and Town Meeting sometimes has to settle the disagreements. No one in Acton wants to be divisive. Our goal as a town should be to continue to cooperate and work together but not eliminate the very important check and balance that FinCom should be providing to ensure that taxpayer monies are well spent. Unfortunately, we have evolved a very cooperative system that simply does virtually nothing to control spending increases.

Even if FinCom were inclined to cut a budget, the timing works against us. By the time we are ready to take action, we are just a few weeks (or less) from Town Meeting.

There are too many cooks in the kitchen. We can't have four boards making last-minute decisions on three different budgets. And leaving the budgets to the originating boards (Selectmen and School Committees) as we do now does not provide an effective way to control costs. They propose what they think will pass at Town Meeting and they budget up to that limit. They fiercely protect any cuts to their proposed budget.

So how does this problem get solved? The best solution is to have FinCom take charge of the budgets once the other boards have approved them, and allow FinCom to make the budget presentations at Town Meeting. This rather simple change would put in motion a vast number of efficiencies which would end up saving taxpayers money and streamline the entire process.

If FinCom handled the budgets, it should be assumed that it would have no power to add items but only to take them away. The power to add items would remain with the originating boards. They set priorities and FinCom eliminates inefficiencies and waste.

Once FinCom gets the budgets from these other boards sometime in February, it would have six weeks to get further information, debate, and finalize what is being proposed. We would hold budget hearings in March and simply cut out what we cannot support. If the other boards felt strongly that something should be reinstated, they could take their case to Town Meeting and argue it.

FinCom is supposed to act as the taxpayer's watchdog over spending. It can't do that when it is relegated to an advisory role and when its access to information is delayed and limited. The only way to break this logjam is to give FinCom the authority to handle the budgets and present them at Town Meeting. The voters would always exercise ultimate authority over what is approved.

This would free up the other two major boards to focus on policy and prioritize spending requests, but wouldn't give them final authority over their budget. That needs to rest with the taxpayers, and FinCom would represent them.

And then FinCom needs to do a much better job of reviewing specific spending requests and recommending cuts when items are wasteful, inefficient, not properly justified, or when overall spending is not sustainable. That is a key role for FinCom, and that role is not currently being performed at a satisfactory level. I am hopeful that if FinCom were to handle the budgets, they would step up and fully review what is given to them because that would clearly be their responsibility.