Laserfiche WebLink
locked in there; you have absolutely given up flexibility. We know that part of the history of <br />this coming to you now is that in the current system, we do have the flexibility and we took <br />advantage of the flexibility in these extraordinary times to temporarily withhold funding this. <br />While we continue to use the funds to go forth, but it allows us, in extraordinary times, to put <br />the funds where we think they are most needed, to higher priorities. Thank you. <br />My second message is on the Charter Amendment for budgetary independence for the <br />Legislative Auditor. Again, this is very similar, in that I think the Legislative Auditor is a <br />very important purpose, and certainly needs to be a funded activity. Setting aside a certain <br />percentage of funds strictly for that, coming again, off the top, before any other items are <br />considered in the budget, gives it another top priority. I think, for one thing, you start down a <br />kind of slippery slope here, if you start doing a lot of these percentage set - asides. You keep <br />whittling down what is available to meet your fixed costs, and any other budgets required for <br />the operations. Also, in this, the percentage proposed to be set aside, which is .25 %, is larger <br />than what some other cities have, and I believe you have that information available. The <br />current budget of the Legislative Auditor is about $776,000. Had we had this in place, and <br />followed it for this current year, they would have a budget of about $968,000, which is a <br />considerable increase, particularly considering that all of our other departments have made <br />cuts coming into this fiscal year due specifically to the circumstances that we are in. But, <br />that's an example of where we do have to be flexible, and we do have to be able to move <br />with the economic situation, and budgetary requirements. I feel that under the current <br />system, the Legislative Auditor has been able to operate fairly independently, from our <br />perspective, and that we set a bad precedent if we start setting aside percentages for different <br />budgetary items. <br />Thank you. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have any questions for Ms. Crawford? <br />MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. <br />MR. KAULUKUKUI: This is in regards to the first proposed budget amendment to which <br />you testified against. I suppose - -and you kind of alluded to it - -the reason the amendment has <br />come forward is the very reason that you oppose it. You want the flexibility and I think the <br />public is asking not to have the flexibility; because when we faced a tight budget, or budget <br />constraints, the administration chose to go ahead and raid this fund, rather than make other <br />adjustments. Were there other adjustments that could have been considered? <br />MS.CRAWFORD: Well, many other adjustments were made. This was not the first easy <br />thing we did. And we did not raid the fund, in the sense of taking the funds that are there, <br />and that are currently being used to continue to acquire property. We did ask to set aside- - <br />and we were authorized by the Council - -those contributions for the two years that we <br />perceive are a very difficult economic time. After having used many other items, we cut the <br />entire budget by 4 %, and a lot of our costs are fixed; so actually, the departments - -the <br />0 <br />