jonetta rose barras: The finance chief’s annoyance and the mayor’s money grab
In a publicly released letter, DC Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey DeWitt essentially declared his annoyance last week with DC auditor Kathy Patterson and others who have criticized Mayor Muriel Bowser’s fiscal year 2020 budget for its lack of fiscal prudence and its inherent risks to the future financial health of the city. I have offered my own views, asserting there are huge problems with the proposal as submitted.
Not to worry, said DeWitt in that March 27 missive, a version of which was published in The Washington Post as the CFO’s response to an article on Patterson’s testimony at a DC Council hearing. He argued that he is required by federal law to “certify that the budgets submitted by the mayor to the Council, and ultimately to Congress, are balanced.” He quoted a section of his March 20 letter included in the proposed budget that said “the FY2020 – FY2023 budget and financial plan is balanced.” He added: “I stand firmly by that statement.”
A balanced budget isn’t the issue. It’s whether the budget is responsible; the city auditor has said it isn’t. Truth be told, the mayor’s budget is a $15.5 billion fiscal monstrosity, built on tax increases and a callous disregard for District laws.
Bowser proposes to generate new revenues, in part, by repealing some existing tax laws and bypassing other approved DC Council legislation. In the process, she has stripped away transparency critical for DC residents’ understanding of whether a given public policy has any real permanence. Those policies are supposed to be clear, unambiguous statements that reflect citizens’ values and priorities.
Council Chairman Phil Mendelson has blasted the mayor’s budget. He said last month in his opening statement at the first budget hearing that despite huge spending hikes, “virtually none of the council’s legislation that became law — and therefore government policy — under the mayor’s watch is funded in this budget — like Language Access, or School Discipline, or Birth-to-Three.”
Residents appeared at public hearings to debate the pros and cons of such policies. Council members analyzed the benefits before finally placing their imprimatur on them. Now comes Bowser ignoring those priorities while hiding her actions behind a dense, multi-book document. If policies are to be altered or if the executive is going to veto legislation after the fact, it should be done in the light of day and residents should have the opportunity to weigh in on such actions through the normal legislative process. The rush of the budget season makes it too easy to overlook important policy changes that merit scrutiny on their own — a needle lost in a haystack, if you will.
Equally egregious, Bowser’s actions have resulted in a budget that makes it even more difficult for taxpayers to fully understand what is happening with their money — and it is their money.
“I am disappointed with this budget,” said Mendelson.
We all should be. Bowser has engaged in dishonest budget development and political maneuvering. The CFO has abetted that process.
DeWitt allowed her to snatch anticipated profits from the Sports Wagering Lottery Amendment Act of 2018 that would have been used for violence prevention and early childhood education. He permitted her to steal sales tax revenue that was to be used to support the arts and arts organizations. He cleared the way for her to take money that had been identified for a reduction to the commercial property tax rate and grabbed revenue generated by commercial property tax sales, one of the few areas cited by the CFO that continues to witness significant growth.
The federal law creating DC’s independent CFO back in the mid-1990s gave that entity broad powers over the city’s finances. The first person in the job, Anthony Williams, exercised his authority, aided by the financial control board. His successor, who had worked under Williams, did not use those powers beginning when Williams was the elected mayor, however. That pattern of behavior became practice, ultimately diluting congressional intention, in my view. Even if DeWitt — playing a political hand similar to his predecessor — did not want to exert his authority, he surely could have called out Bowser’s actions as unwise and inappropriate.
David Umansky, the CFO spokesperson, in an email and subsequent telephone interview with me, defended his boss and the mayor. He said the mayor submits as part of her budget request a “Budget Support Act (BSA).” In it she can “include new legislation such as the increased deed recordation and transfer taxes or changes to existing legislation.”
“The council can choose to accept or reject those changes,” continued Umansky. He insisted, in our conversation, that the mayor’s budget is only a “proposal.” He said that when the CFO works with the executive he is working with “the mayor’s budget. Now that the council has the proposal, it becomes the council’s budget and the CFO will work with the council,” Umansky said, echoing remarks DeWitt made at a recent council hearing.
“If the council rejects the legislative changes, then the budget must be balanced and certified by the CFO before it can be sent back to the mayor for signature followed by submission to Congress,” added Umansky.
I don’t remember the CFO as being responsible for doing the mayor’s bidding — or the council’s bidding, for that matter. The congressional legislation intended the person holding that position to be an independent arbiter who would make sound financial decisions while protecting the public’s wallet.
The mayor went hog-wild in this 2020 budget and financial plan, spending every penny she could put her hands on — real or imagined. DeWitt sat on the sidelines, apparently believing his most critical mission to be certifying a balanced budget. As a result of his failure to be more deliberative and aggressive, the buck has been passed to the council to clean up the fiscal mess.
Undoubtedly, Bowser is hoping Mendelson won’t be able to muster the courage to take the fiscal reins, creating a budget that funds important priorities without sending the city down a dangerous path. Council members should stand strong against the mayor’s fiscal shenanigans. They may also want to push back against this mayoral encroachment, demanding through new legislation the adherence and fidelity by both the executive and the CFO to existing DC laws in the creation of any future budget. If they demonstrate any timidity, they should be prepared for Bowser to pull the same stunt next year.
jonetta rose barras is a DC-based freelance writer and host of The Barras Report television show. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.
“Bowser proposes to generate new revenues, in part, by repealing some existing tax laws and bypassing other approved DC Council legislation. In the process, she has stripped away transparency critical for DC residents’ understanding of whether a given public policy has any real permanence. Those policies are supposed to be clear, unambiguous statements that reflect citizens’ values and priorities.”
I agree with Ms. Barras that Mayor Bowser’s failure to fund policies and programs enacted by the legislature functions as a backhand veto. But this has been standard operating procedure for generations of D.C. mayors and Councils. And while the author rails at the CFO for having “cleared the way for [Mayor Bowser] to take money that had been identified for a reduction to the commercial property tax rate,” she should be equally appalled that the Council previously pulled this same revenue, expected from Internet sales taxes, out from under its original beneficiaries–affordable housing and Metro improvements–to give it to large commercial property owners.