1. law, govt and politics
2. government

J. OF PUBLIC BUDGETING, ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 16(2), 210-227
SUMMER 2004
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
Aimee Franklin and Carol Ebdon*
ABSTRACT. Citizen participation in local government processes is touted as
an effective means to enhance responsiveness and accountability. The topic has
received considerable attention in the normative literature, yet there is persistent
evidence that citizen participation occurs infrequently and has little influence on
decision making. This study compares the perspectives of three different groups
of stakeholders: elected officials, administrators, and citizens. Examination of
the perspectives of these three groups of actors is important because it provides
insight into the relationships between the groups and expectations regarding how
input is used and how it influences decisions. Attention to these items can make
participation more valuable and can inform other governments as they ponder
how to align the priorities of different actors in their budgeting processes.
INTRODUCTION
The importance of citizen participation in the governance process has
been stressed by both scholars and professional organizations since
implementation of the Great Society programs in the 1960s. However,
the literature demonstrates that opportunities for input into budget
decisions are not prevalent. This is true early in the budget process, when
public opinion would conceivably have the most impact on decisionmaking.
This study explores the manner in which two Kansas cities, Topeka
and Wichita, have approached citizen participation in the budget process.
Both cities have experimented with a variety of input mechanisms during
-------------------* Aimee Franklin, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Graduate Program
Director, Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma. Her
research interests are in strategic management, particularly issues of public
budgeting & financial management. Carol Ebdon, Ph.D., is Associate Professor,
Department of Public Administration, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her
research interests are in state and local budgeting and finance.
Copyright 8 2004 by PrAcademics Press
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
211
budget development. The primary focus of the study is to compare the
perspectives of three different groups of stakeholders: elected officials,
administrators, and citizens. It examines how these groups interact and
the relative level of influence of each in budget development. By
examining the relationships between groups of actors and their
expectations, insight can be gained into who should be involved and in
what capacity. Attention to these items can make participation valuable
for everyone involved. It can also inform other governments as they
ponder how to align the priorities of different actors in their local
budgeting processes.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Citizen participation has received increasing attention in the past
decade. An expanded role for citizens in the governance process has been
advocated by scholars (Box, 1998; King, Stivers & Associates, 1998;
Schachter, 1997; Thomas, 1995; King, Feltey & Susel, 1998), and by
professional organizations such as the International City/County
Management Association (ICMA, 1999). The emphasis on participation
can also be seen through changes in administrative functions; Nalbandian
(1999) found that city managers have become much more focused on
community building and facilitation of participation in public policies in
the past ten years.
The literature shows positive effects of participation. Citizens in
cities with more participation have been found to be less cynical about
local government (Berman, 1997). The city of Dayton, Ohio uses
community boards to improve neighborhoods; with their support, the city
has not lost a tax election in twenty years (Gurwitt, 1992). Benefits have
been reported by participants (Kathlene & Martin, 1991), as well as by
public officials (Watson, Juster & Johnson, 1991).
Citizen input is seen as a way to reduce the level of distrust in
government, and to educate people about government activities. This is
made difficult by barriers to participation such as: lack of knowledge of
government; public perceptions that they do not have access or their
opinions are unwanted; and citizen apathy and lack of time (Frisby &
Bowman, 1996; King, Feltey & Susel, 1998; National Academy of
Public Administration, 1999).
212
FRANKLIN & EBDON
The empirical research specific to citizen participation in budgeting
is limited. The use of participation in budgeting appears to be relatively
low in local governments. One survey of budget practices across various
types of local governments found extensive use of public hearings and
budget summary documents, but low usage of other methods included in
the survey (O’Toole, Marshall & Grewe, 1996). A 1996 ICMA survey of
managers in council-manager cities revealed that larger cities were more
likely to use participation during the budget process than smaller cities,
but the overall levels were not high; only 18% of respondents hold
community meetings for budget development input, and 32% receive
formal recommendations from citizen groups during city council
consideration of the budget (Ebdon, 2000). A study based on interviews
with 28 Midwestern city budget directors found that only 21% have used
participation mechanisms during development of the budget proposal,
but that citizen input generally has a great deal of influence on budget
decisions (Ebdon, 2002). Similar results were found in Texas cities; only
29% of respondents provide opportunities for public input during the
development process, although 79% stated that public testimony was
important in decision making (Franklin & Carberry-George, 1999).
While citizen participation is considered highly desirable and
influential, its use in the budget process is still underwhelming. This
research examines the key actors’ views regarding the purpose and value
of citizen participation. Examination of the perspectives of these three
different groups of actors is important because it provides insight into the
relationships between the groups and expectations regarding how
budgetary input is used and how it influences decision outcomes. The
literature does not provide guidance on these issues, and so they are the
subject of this study.
METHODOLOGY
Given the need for more in-depth exploration of these issues, case
studies of cities that actually have given citizens opportunities for input
into budget decisions are a useful way to approach the research to
compare the views of elected officials, city administrators and active
citizens. We selected two cities as case studies to provide contextual
examples in comparable settings. Earlier research (Ebdon, 2000)
identified two Midwestern cities that have each used several different
participation mechanisms during the budget preparation process: Topeka
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
213
and Wichita, Kansas. The authors spent approximately one week in each
city gathering data for the case studies.
The primary methodology used was interviews. A total of 40
interviews were conducted, with 20 individuals in each city. Interviewees
were purposively selected to represent three broad categories of actors in
the participative process: elected officials, city administrators, and active
citizens. Included were a majority of the city council, the Mayor and
primary administrative officer, the budget director, several major
department heads and staff members, and five external community
stakeholders in each city. All city council members were contacted, but
some were unavailable during our visit. The community representatives
were selected based on recommendations from city officials.
The interviews generally lasted one hour. Open-ended questions
were used to elicit the interviewee’s experience with and perspective on
the budget process, the role of citizens in the governance process, and the
influence of various interest groups and the media in city decisionmaking, and the outcomes derived from citizen participation. Due to the
diverse positions of the individuals interviewed, the specific questions
and focus of each interview varied slightly.
The research was conducted during the city council consideration of
the 2001 budget. In addition to interviews, the authors observed a sixhour city council meeting and public budget hearing in Topeka. In
Wichita, we attended a city council meeting and two District Advisory
Board meetings. District Advisory Boards are 11 member groups of
citizen advisors to city council. Finally, archival analysis was conducted
to review city council meeting minutes, newspaper articles, city budgets,
and other appropriate documents related to citizen participation and
budgeting.
There are limitations to this methodology. Although we made every
effort to obtain a wide variety of views, we had to rely on the city
officials to assist us in the identification of citizens who had previously
been participants. So there is a threat that the city officials may have
steered us to citizens who would give a favorable review of the
participation process, instead of directing us to the disenfranchised
participants (if any). Thus, there is a concern that the citizens’ views are
biased. Also, an important perspective may have been missed due to the
limited number of interviews and method of selection. We selected
Wichita and Topeka as the case study cities for several reasons. First, we
214
FRANKLIN & EBDON
wanted comparable midwestern cities. Both these cities had indicated in
prior research (Ebdon, 2002) that they were engaging in citizen
participation activities. We also chose these cities because they were in
close proximity to each other allowing for one research trip. In addition,
they both have similar budget development and approval processes and
are both subject to the same state budget laws and procedures. The
experiences in these two cities may not be generalizable to other cities.
However, given the paucity of research on citizen participation in the
budget process, a deeper understanding of the usage of participation
mechanisms in these two cities can provide valuable insights that may be
helpful for other municipalities.
CASE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Kansas state law imposes certain budget process requirements on
cities. One public hearing is mandated. However, the hearing is held after
publication of the maximum amount of the budget and tax levy. After
this publication, city council cannot increase the budget or tax levy, they
can only shift funding within this limit or reduce it. This law then by its
nature, reduces the potential influence of the hearing on the final budget
decisions.
Both cities are on a calendar fiscal year that begins on January 1st.
Both cities use a line-item format for budget approval. The original
requests are prepared by the departments with assistance from the budget
office staff. The budget office is responsible for consolidating, reviewing
and revising the requests, if necessary. Both cities have an executive
team that reviews the consolidated requests before the budget is
presented to the city council. The proposed budget is presented to city
council in early July. The city council publishes the overall budget limits
in late July. Then public hearings are held to finalize the specific
allocations to the line items in each department. Council adoption of the
budget occurs in mid-August in both Wichita and Topeka. The cities and
their budget processes vary somewhat in other ways however (see Table
1 for a summary).
Wichita has used a variety of mechanisms to receive citizen input on
the budget in recent years. A comprehensive citizen survey was
conducted by Wichita State University in 1997; while the survey was not
specifically related to the budget, many of the issues addressed in the
survey related to taxes and spending. Prior to submission of the 1999 and
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
215
TABLE 1
Comparison of Wichita and Topeka
Variable
Population
Form of Government
# City Council Members
Council Election Method
Wichita
329,000
Council-manager
6
Districts
Topeka
126,000
Mayor-council
9
Districts
2000 proposed budgets, neighborhood and other community leaders used
networked computers in small group settings to vote on city budget
priorities. A budget simulation exercise was used during the budget
development phase for the 2001 budget, with neighborhood association
leaders and District Advisory Board (DAB) members invited to
participate. In addition, some DABs included the proposed budget as an
issue on their meeting agendas during the period of council consideration
of the budget. At the public hearing we attended, there was only one
external speaker, the President of Wichita State University, who
commended the council on their continuation of the dedicated 1½ mills
from the city property tax to support the University. Public hearings were
held in late July to consider the proposed budget.
Topeka has experimented with a variety of citizen input mechanisms
in the recent past. However, the relationship between the Mayor and city
council in Topeka during the consideration of the recommended budget
has not been smooth in recent years. As a result, the Mayor and the
council did not jointly sponsor any activities designed to gather citizen
input on the budget. The Mayor invited a group of community leaders to
participate in a focus group during preparation of the budget in 1998. In
1999, a citizen survey was conducted on citizen priorities and
satisfaction. Also in 1999, the city council budget committee
chairwoman conducted an open forum during the budget process to
solicit feedback. In 2000, changes were made to the city council budget
work sessions. Previously, they were held on Saturdays in a small
conference room setting; this year, these meetings were conducted on the
same evenings as the city council meetings and were televised. While
this change did not permit greater input from citizens, it did allow for
greater access to budget information and city council actions. Public
hearings were held in late July to consider the proposed budget.
216
FRANKLIN & EBDON
As shown above, both cities have utilized a variety of input
mechanisms. In addition to identifying the techniques used, the research
also sought to understand the perceptions of the three groups of actors
concerning the input mechanisms and the levels of influence that input
had on the budget results. Description of these groups of actors is
provided in the next section.
ACTORS IN THE BUDGET PROCESS
This research examined the participation and perspectives of three
key groups of actors in local government budgeting process; elected
officials, city administrators and community representatives. In this
section, we provide more detail on the actors and the degree of
representativeness they provide relative to a city’s residents. In each city,
there are patterns suggesting variation in the perceptions of the different
groups of actors regarding the roles and relationships between each.
Elected Officials
The first group we studied is the elected officials. As described
above, both Wichita and Topeka have city council members elected by
district. In addition, each has a Mayor that is elected at large. The role of
city council is generally accepted as being to represent their constituents
and provide long term vision and policy guidance for the city.
Perceptions of how best to fulfill this role vary dramatically between the
elected officials in the two cities and set the tone for relationships
between elected officials. This disparity has a trickle down effect in
terms of the relationship with the staff and the community
representatives. In Wichita, the city council members uniformly describe
agreement on the budget and see no need to tinker with the budget, as
this statement suggests: “Traditionally the city manager’s budget is fairly
well accepted. This is because of the confidence in the management of
the city.” There is some disagreement on the proper role of the advisory
boards, but all are quick to point out that this concept is in its infancy and
some adjustments in expectations will occur in the future. Council
members in Topeka point out that the budget process is politically
driven. A representative comment: “It is personalities and not policy that
underscores budget discussions.” City council deliberations concerning
the budget occur at the line item detail level and are targeted to exposing
and eliminating waste and mismanagement.
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
217
City Administrators
In both cities, key central staff and departmental personnel have
initial responsibility for development of the annual budget request. To
gain the perspective of central staff officials as well as the heads of the
major operating departments, we talked to the city manager in Wichita
and the chief administrative officer in Topeka and the budget manager in
both cities, as well as the heads of the Police, Fire, Public Works and
Parks Departments.
Discussions with these officials revealed that there are more
differences than similarities in the role of the professional staff in budget
development. The main similarity is that neither group receives extensive
policy guidance from elected officials at the start of the process. The
primary difference between cities is the amount of responsibility and
discretion departments are given in preparing their requests. In Wichita,
the process is highly centralized. The budget office builds the base
budget using current and prior year data. Then the budget analyst sits
down with the departments to review the base budget and determine if
there are any new requests. The city manager of Wichita has a very
hands-on role in the budget development process and works closely with
the budget manager. In addition, he has convened a group of senior
officials and department heads, called the Budget Review Cabinet, to
consider all options and enhancements and the central budget analysts’
recommendations. In Topeka, the budget manager transmits a target
figure for the operating budget request to each department. Assuming
that the department submits a request that does not exceed this target,
review by the budget manager is minimal. Given the differences in the
degree of centralization of the budget development process, one might
expect differences in the nature of the relationships between central staff
and department heads. However, this was not the case. In both cities,
these groups realize they are going to have to work together closely in
order to propose a budget that meets the fiscal realities facing the city. As
this interviewee describes: “I do not have time to find where the
(departments) hid the bodies. And besides, this creates an adversarial
relationship and I have to deal with them all year. I am not going to be
the guy who says ‘a ha’ instead, I need to help them.”
To do this, all administrators understand that give and take is
required and there will be some winners and losers; but in the end, they
all have to work together.
218
FRANKLIN & EBDON
Community Representatives
The third group of actors, the community representatives, is the most
diverse of the three studied both in terms of the individuals and their
knowledge of the budget process. In both Wichita and Topeka, there are
a variety of boards and citizens groups that provide participation
opportunities. The activities of these groups differ as does their level of
input into the budget process. Participants in these organizations are
selected through different processes, although it is possible for a resident
to serve on multiple groups simultaneously. For each of the six city
council districts, Wichita has created an 11 member District Advisory
Board, of which the city council representative for that district serves as
chair. In addition, the city also has more than 80 neighborhood
associations and some advisory boards such as the Library Advisory
Board. Topeka has over 30 neighborhood associations which include 16
neighborhood improvement associations. The neighborhood and some
homeowners associations are designed to provide a forum for
communicating local needs and concerns as well as advising city
government about plans and policies. The city also has different advisory
boards such as the social services advisory board that make
recommendations to the city council on the distribution of city social
service funding.
Members of the Wichita DAB’s were invited to the budget
simulation conducted in the summer of 2000. Working as a group based
on their district, they provided recommendations for changes to a sample
of issues the city council would be considering in the July budget
deliberations. Attendees at this meeting found it very educational and left
the meeting confident that their recommendations would be moved
forward. However, the DAB members also understood that their role in
this process and the results were purely advisory. Here is one
participant’s perspective on this process:
It was useful, it absolutely was. I think it will blossom from this,
it really will. It’s too bad that they did not do this a long time
ago. Of course, they may not take our advice, the department
heads know more, but at least we can read things in here. But
we know there is probably more than what was in the simulation.
I think it is a way for the city manager, Mayor and city council to
listen in our city.
As described previously, in Topeka, the selection of participants for
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
219
the focus groups and community forum was done on an ad hoc basis with
little to no consideration given to assuring representation across the city’s
constituent groups. It appears that an invitation to participate often comes
as the result of previous involvement with key political actors or because
an individual is a representative of a specific group such as a non-profit
social service agency or a group with an economic development focus.
However, in Topeka most people who testify at the public hearings and
open forum represent themselves as individuals and not as members of
an organized group. Most interviewees concur that these are primarily
disenfranchised citizens who are likely to avail themselves of the public
hearing as a means for participating in budget development. As one
administrator explained:
There will always be the public hearings. These are required by
law. We have one guy, he is a self-proclaimed government
watchdog. These meetings do not help a lot. The turnout is not
all that good, but you will see change this year due to the cuts in
socials services and the fact that they are televised. This makes a
huge, huge, huge difference. . . You will see every angry,
inarticulate person show up that you can not satisfy, no matter
what you do or say.
In both cities, the relationships between citizen participants are
mostly cordial. Part of the reason for this may be nothing more than
group dynamics: the DAB members had not worked together long, but at
the meetings we attended, the interchanges were professional and no
interpersonal problems were noted. In Topeka, there was no group
organized for budget input so we were unable to observe the nature of
ongoing relationships. Anecdotally, the participants that were
interviewed did not identify any interpersonal conflicts even though they
were quick to point out the conflicts between Mayor and some of the
Topeka city council members. The next section moves beyond individual
actors in the three groups studied to examine the relationships between
the groups.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GROUPS OF ACTORS
In Wichita, the relationship between the elected officials and the
administrators is one of overall confidence that the budget submission
reflects citizen priorities. Trust is the watchword to describe the
relationship between the council and city administrators. The trust
220
FRANKLIN & EBDON
extends to the budget process as well as to the day-to-day operations.
Both groups describe how they work together and how this results in a
smooth process with a good product. Congenial relations between
council and staff may be a product of the length of time that key
administrators have been in office. For example, the manager has been
with the city for 15 years and the Mayor has been in office every year
except two since 1979, so tenure provides a good grounding for
expectations.
In Topeka, there are two distinct sets of perceptions regarding the
role of city administrators. Part of the council trusts the staff and the
budget and does not ask a lot of questions. Other council members
express frustration at the lack of ability to find out more about what the
departments are doing. Their focus seems to be more about discrediting
specific departments or calling into question certain line item
expenditures. The administrators, for the most part, prefer not to deal
directly with the council members, since they feel council often misses
the big picture and does not ask about policy-oriented changes. Instead
council questions are personnel specific or relate to small dollar line
items. This kind of inquiry is viewed by staff as micromanagement and
nit picking.
The difference in the role of the primary administrative officer is
another source of discrepancy in the perceived relationship between city
staff and elected officials. In Wichita, the city manager is viewed as
professional and in control of the budget process, but rightfully so
because: 1) he is that good and 2) it is his job. He is expected by elected
officials, city staff and community representatives alike to act on behalf
of the council and has been given wide latitude to do so, as this quote by
an elected official describes: “There is no change from the city
manager’s budget. I will say we have an incredible city manager and
financial staff and we tell them all along what is important to us.” In
contrast, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) position in Topeka has
no specific duties except to work for the Mayor. This is seen as being
limiting since the council cannot directly interact with the CAO or the
department personnel and, as a result, there is little council input during
the budget development process. The low level of input may also be
explained in part by the role the Mayor, as the chief executive officer of
the city, plays in the budget development process. The lack of staff
access is compounded by the fact that the council has only two staff. This
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
221
is perceived as being inadequate for policy analysis, as noted by this
elected official’s comment:
The Mayor and city council do not have staff positions to do the
policy thinking. There was no need before with an accounting
process and a very disingenuous planning process. One thing I
did agree with was that we needed to have a professional
attorney-type to do our things in the city council. We are still
very deficient. The planning staff is very active, but we lack
policy staff. As a result, there are no resources, like for ordinance
writing support.
The Relationship Between the Community Representatives and the
Council and Staff
Among actors in all three groups, there is no common perception
regarding the role of the groups of citizens, collectively referred to as the
boards, that represent the community. For the most part, the boards are
geographically or demographically representative of only one portion of
the city. This tends to make their deliberations very “local issue”
specific. All three groups of actors commonly acknowledge, and even
emphasize, that the boards are only advisory and have no binding
decision making authority. In addition, the boards are commonly viewed
as a source of direct input to the city staff as well as to the individual
council member for their district.
The primary function of the community representatives, according to
the council members and city staff is to provide information and act as a
sounding board for community sentiment. This leads to different uses,
different expectations and different perceptions of influence. The
differing expectations regarding use are apparent in the types of things
that the DAB’s consider in Wichita. As described by council and
community representatives, the DAB’s focus on one or all of the
following: zoning, budgeting, priority setting, allocating earmarked
funds, improving neighborhoods, or enhancing decision making.
Some board members view their role as being a mouthpiece for the
neighborhood associations, as this one describes: “The folks in my
neighborhood association nominated the DAB members. They wanted
two things: 1) a representative for a whole body of individuals, and 2) an
opportunity to work on neighborhood associations’ problems and have
some clout without going through necessary channels. Rather than going
222
FRANKLIN & EBDON
to the city when we lose control, we can try to handle it at the DAB
level.” Others see participation as a stepping stone for elected officials.
Many thought the boards bring government closer to the people, both
geographically and staff wise, and make it less intimidating. In that
respect, the boards function like an ombudsman.
A minority of staff questioned the proper role of the boards. They
voiced concern that the boards add an additional layer of government and
slow down city decision-making. Staff does not see community
representatives as having sufficient knowledge to provide policy
guidance. Both staff and board members think staff liaisons provide an
important information and education function. On the plus side, good
access helps to reduce the bureaucratic maze. However, it stops people
from “going downtown” which leaves top administrators and elected
officials out of the knowledge loop, if this feedback is not obtained
through other channels.
As described above, there are differences in the nature of the
relationships between the three groups of actors. Not surprisingly, in
Wichita, where there are very cordial relationships between council
members, the relationships between the council members and the
administrative staff and community representatives are also very cordial.
The friendly relations between and within the groups set the stage for
how input is used when considering the budget: as valued advice from
friends. Sometimes you accept their input, sometimes you don’t; but you
always consider the merits of what they are telling you. City council
members understand that the community representatives offer a very
limited perspective on what is important in their district. They realize
that the views of this group may not be universally representative, but
they are representative of some of the key constituents they serve. In the
long run, savvy council members realize that involving community
representatives will benefit them, as well as the city. Administrators also
see the importance of getting the community perspective as a valuable
opportunity for input, but they too recognize that it is hard to get
representative input.
In Topeka, relationships between the groups of actors, like the
citizen participation mechanisms are not institutionalized. As a result,
there is little consistency in how the groups interact. The one
generalization that can be made is that interaction occurs on an ad hoc
basis and when it is externally imposed, such as the state mandated
public hearings, or when it can be used to discredit another group. No
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
223
matter the impetus, seldom is the input described as valuable or as a good
means for finding out preferences.
ACTORS, INPUTS AND INFLUENCE
Even though all three groups of actors have some form of input into
the annual budget development process, there is variation regarding the
utility of the input and the influence it has on the outcome of the process.
Almost universally unquestioned was the influence of the elected
officials and administrators in budget development. This was viewed as
appropriate and necessary, based on official roles and responsibilities.
However, there are differences in the interviewee’s perceptions of the
relative level of influence of community participants. Many interviewees
were quick to point out that community representatives, and their level of
influence, are not a unified body with a single point of view. Identified as
having varying levels of influence were the advisory boards, business
representatives, and non-profit organizations. Perceptions of the
influence of these groups follow.
More than one-half of the interviewees described the advisory boards
as having influence. The boards are active in terms of getting information
out and working together on specific issues. The common perception in
Wichita is that they excel at getting things done, as this elected official
points out: “Recently there was a question regarding the type and
location of library services. The DAB made a recommendation on a
regional library site that would be located on land that was currently
operating as a fire station but which was going to be shut down. The next
week the library board chose the same site.”
The influence of the business representatives is lower and, in fact,
20% of interviewees indicated that they have no influence. The influence
is described as not direct and occurs mostly through individual city
council member contact or involvement with a political party. Contact is
described as pretty low impact and comes in the areas of planning and
real estate development. One Wichita city council member describes his
perceptions of business influence: “I have had some contact. Not any
concerted effort for a project, but they will contact one or two members
to get a feel for the water to see if a project will be accepted. An example
is the (new) Development Project. This is an ongoing project that is
good. It is a good effort and partnership between business and
government.” In Topeka, the business community is viewed as not active
224
FRANKLIN & EBDON
in the city’s processes even though they do receive city funds. This
interviewee describes the relationship: “Business chooses not to
participate, but they will take our $5 million (funding for economic
development).”
Non-profit organizations are not viewed as having much influence.
The influence they do have is limited to improving neighborhood
infrastructure and recreation opportunities. Their primary activity in
relation to the budget is to use Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds to improve specific geographic areas of the city. A
Topeka city council member gives this perspective: “The neighborhood
improvement associations have influence in the distribution of the
CDBG money. Very much so. When local people talk, it is about
projects, not politics.”
From this research, it is clear that there are varying perceptions about
the advantages, disadvantages, and outcomes of citizen participation in
budget development. However, the differences are not purely between
the three groups of actors, elected officials, administrators and citizen
participants, as originally expected. It appears that it is just different
individual perceptions. It does appear that the impact of the community
representatives - no matter the group they represent - is limited to
specific issues or viewed as indirect and often outside of the budget
allocation process.
One factor that may contribute to this lack of direct, tangible impact
is that there are differing expectations about the input process. Elected
officials tend to view the process as an opportunity to gather
representative opinions to guide them in their decision making. The staff
sees input as a means for educating the citizenry about the complexities
of the budget. The community representatives, overall, view the input
opportunities as informative and an opportunity to advise, but not bind,
city council members. These differing expectations are reflected in the
relationships between groups. It is widely accepted that the community
representatives provide important input, but this input has to be balanced
with other direct and indirect sources of input inside and outside the
city’s operations.
When analyzing the combination of actors, relationships, and
influence, some conclusions can be drawn. First, in Wichita, where the
process is institutionalized, the actors have clear roles and
responsibilities and the relationships reflect common expectations. It is
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
225
understood, and apparent, that the members of each group will stick to
the business they are assigned. The city council will make decisions
based on input received from the administrative staff, since they are the
professional experts, as well as input from the representatives of the
districts they serve and other organized groups in the city. Members of
the other two groups realize that their advice is just that, advice, and it
must be weighed against other input. But, in the final analysis, all three
groups acknowledge the potential for input to have a positive effect, even
though this input is not always related directly to the budget. And, all
three groups are committed to continuation of the citizen participation
activities.
Participants in Topeka, in contrast, seem comfortable with the
informal and shifting nature of: groups of actors, mechanisms for input,
and influence in budgetary outcomes. Recall that in this city, the process
is much more individualistic and politicized. As a result, relationships
between groups do reflect a concern with getting usable information,
even though use can, at times, be perceived as negative and designed to
discredit individual political actors. Since use and influence is
unpredictable, it should not be surprising that there is no identified group
of community representatives whose input is valued, and that many
participation mechanisms have been tried and discarded.
CONCLUSION
In the end, it cannot be said that the currently used citizen
participation input mechanisms have direct impact on budgetary
decisions in these two cities. This makes it hard to keep up
interest/momentum and to guarantee the representativeness of those that
do participate. Further, the necessity of investing additional time and
resources in this activity is questioned by some who perceive that
citizens have greater access now than ever before, especially increased
access to individual council members. So what does the future hold in
terms of the potential for institutionalization of citizen participation?
This research confirms perceptions regarding the desirability and
benefits of obtaining citizen input into city operations. When structured
creatively, such as using multiple input mechanisms that touch a wide
variety of residents, citizen participation does assist the council in
performing their responsibilities to represent constituents and provide
long term vision and policy guidance. However, the findings in these two
226
FRANKLIN & EBDON
midwestern cities do not allow one to make definitive conclusions
regarding the extent to which participation has a direct impact on
decision making or how well it aligns priorities in local government
budgeting. What can generally be said is that the three groups of actors in
the participation process see the world differently and citizen input
mechanisms are valuable in educating the actors about resource
limitations and in communicating spending preferences. Future deductive
research should validate the differing perceptions of the three groups of
actors using a larger, statistically representative sample drawn from a
population of cities that are using similar citizen participation
mechanisms. These findings also suggest that participation in local
government decision-making may, in reality, be perceived to be
acceptable more as a republican versus a democratic function. That is a
few representatives have decision-making input instead of a situation
where all citizens participate with equal voice. What we can see from
these two cities is that elected officials, administrators and those with a
strong sense of civic duty and a willingness to commit their time to the
process have the most input into the governmental process.
REFERENCES
Berman, E. (1997), “Dealing with Cynical
Administration Review, 57 (2): 105-112.
Citizens,”
Public
Box, R. (1998), Citizen Governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ebdon, C. (2000), “The Relationship Between Citizen Involvement in the
Budget Process and City Structure and Culture,” Public Productivity
and Management Review, 23 (3): 383-393.
Ebdon, C. (2002), “Beyond the Public Hearing: Citizen Participation in
the Local Government Budget Process,” Journal of Public
Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 14 (2): 273-294.
Franklin, A., & Carberry-George, B. (1999), “Analyzing How Local
Government Establish Service Priorities,” Public Budgeting &
Finance, 19 (3): 31-46.
Frisby, M., & Bowman, M. (1996), “What We Have Here is a Failure to
Communicate,” Public Management, 78 (2): A1-A5.
ALIGNING PRIORITIES IN LOCAL BUDGETING PROCESSES
227
Gurwitt, R. (1992, December), “A Government That Runs on Citizen
Power,” Governing, 6: 48-54.
International City/County Management Association, ICMA Declaration
of Ideals [On-line]. Available at http://www.icma.org/abouticma/
ideals.cfm.
International City/County Management Association (1999), Municipal
Year Book. Washington, DC: Author.
Kathlene, L., & Martin, J. (1991), “Enhancing Citizen Participation:
Panel Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formation,” Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 10 (1): 46-63.
King, C.S., Feltey, K., & Susel, B.O. (1998), “The Question of
Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public
Administration,” Public Administration Review, 58 (4): 317-326.
King, C.S., Stivers, C., & collaborators (1998), Government is Us,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nalbandian, J. (1999), “Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy:
New Roles for Local Government Managers,” Public Administration
Review, 59 (3): 187-197.
National Academy of Public Administration (1999), A Government to
Trust and Respect. Washington, DC: Author.
O’Toole, D.E., Marshall, J., & Grewe, T. (1996), “Current Local
Government Budgeting Practices,” Government Finance Review, 12
(6): 25-29.
Schachter, H.L. (1997), Reinventing Government or Reinventing
Ourselves. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Thomas, J.C. (1995), Public Participation in Public Decisions. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Watson, D., Juster, R, & Johnson, G. (1991), “Institutionalized Use of
Citizen Surveys in the Budgetary and Policy-making Processes: A
Small City Case Study,” Public Administration Review, 51 (3): 232239.