Today I received a comment from a member of FHC that expressed the opinion that a prior blog entry comparing the three budget choices to the choices on a chinese dinner menu was inappropriate. I apologized to the individual since the person did not feel that the comment was proper. I did not mean to offend that member.
I made the comment in jest. However, in my opinion, the submission of three alternative budgets for a vote of the membership is not, solely on a procedural basis, the customary and prudent method. (Note, I did not say it was improper. I do not know.)
The customary method that I am aware of is for the submission and approval of a single budget by the voters. If the budget passes, no problem. If the budget does not pass, usually the governing body is supposed to conduct business under an austerity budget, or under the constraints of the prior passed budget until a budget is passed. That has been my experience in college, student government, other shuls, school budgets, condominiums and cooperative corporations and various governments.
I do not know how a multiple choice budget vote will work and how one will pass. I have not yet studied this issue, although I anticipate that I will review the bylaws at the appropiate time.
There is also the issue of unfunded mandates. Governments and other bodies often will require a program or other expense to be instituted yet not provide the necessary funding to run such a program. Again, I have not come to any conclusions concerning this issue.
The multiple choice budget vote (not chinese menu), creates interesting issues and things to think about. I look forward to thinking and talking with you in the future about such things. Shalom. Jeremy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment