Austin Budget: Homeless Pets More Important Than Homeless People?

In light of the recent budget readjustment in favor of an animal rights organization, we are coming back to the topic we have discussed in our first article – the budgeting process itself. We cannot shake the feeling that the one who shouts the loudest gets the budget dollars.
 
The Impending Increase of Funding for Spay/Neuter Surgery
 
Recently, the Austin Humane Society started another campaign pushing for increased funding for spay/neuter surgeries at Town Lake Animal Center in Austin. On September 24th, the City Council approved a resolution directing the City Manager to develop a plan to increase the frequency and number of spay/neuter surgery services and present the plan to the Council by November 5, 2009. We will not be surprised if the Humane Society succeeds and the Council votes yes.
 
Being frank, we are not talking about large sums here. The total spending for various animal needs (Animal Services) is $5.1 million or 9.14% of the total Health and Human Services budget. Relating to a full City budget (excluding municipal enterprises), the total spending for the Animal Services budget area is 0.32% of the total budget. But the point here is the pattern in the decision making. No matter how large or small the sum is, the pattern is wrong because it rewards the group who shouts the loudest at the expense of the silent groups.
 
Don’t believe it? Just look to the graph below.
 

 
Over three budget years (blue, green, yellow), the budget for Animal Services has gone from being smaller than the budget for Homeless Services to being 101.1% of the budget for Homeless Services. The percentage growth of the funding has also been larger than Homeless Services. The explanation here is rather simple: stakeholders for animal rights are much more vocal than supporters for Homeless Services.
 
In a review of a public online information we were unable to clarify who advocates for the rights of homeless, but it is quite clear who supports animal rights. In the absence of clear support, the growth of the Homeless Services budget has lagged while the Animal Services budget grew. In absolute terms, the Animal Services budget is now larger than the budgets for Homeless Services, Youth Services, Mental Health Services, and Violence and Victimization Services.
 
History

Let’s have a look at the history of the current decision to investigate the possibility of increasing budget funding for spay/neuter surgeries at Town Lake Animal Center. The City budget for 2008 – 2009 prior to any budget cuts planned additional funding just to the spay/neuter subarea of the Animal Services budget, as well inflationary increases to food, drugs, and shelter supplies for sheltered animals. It is not hard to guess which interest group was standing behind this increase.
 
The planned increase was already the second increase for this year. At the budget review early spring 2009, the planned cut for the Animal Services area was stopped by renewed vocal protests from Austin Human Society and a small increase has been executed instead of the cut.
 
This means that the series of budget reviews left increased(!) funding for the animal shelter and spay/neuter programs by 0.36% from the level of funding in 2008-2009 while cuts were executed in other areas of Health and Human Services--losing a total of 1.92% for the coming budget year. The share of Animal Services has grown from 8.6% of the total Health and Human Services program in 2008-2009 to 9.14% in the coming budget year.

How to Distinguish the Will of the People from the Will of Special Interests Groups?
 
We must clearly point out here that we are not questioning whether the money has been distributed "wrong or right." We simply question the budgeting tradition, which almost always tends to go along with a vocal group of stakeholders. He who shouts the loudest gets the budget dollars.

In order to eliminate the vocal and silent stakeholders trying to influence the distribution of the budget dollars, we need a better decision making system. There needs to be a better way to represent the interests of everyone. One idea is based on Swiss municipal tradition. In Switzerland, municipal communities have direct votes on larger municipal issues affecting the lives of many inhabitants. With three communities speaking in three different languages, maximizing the influence of the inhabitants in municipal matters was the only way for Swiss people to keep a balance between interests and stay united as a country throughout the centuries.
 
Of course gathering in the market places like Swiss people have been doing for centuries is an obsolete idea to advocate in our times. But why don’t we take this example and transfer it to web? For inhabitants of Austin, it would be fully possible to vote on a website. Even if the vote is not formal or legally strict, it would be the easiest way to get direct feedback from constituents. This would largely eliminate the lopsided influence from both vocal and silent warriors.