My general take, when people talk about addressing city budget problems by cutting Council's budget, is that while the amount of money spent on Council may be objectionable, a fight to cut it down just may not be worth the time. Council's cost, relative to the rest of the city's budget, is really quite small: about $15 million out of a $3.5 billion budget. Yes, symbolism matters. But when you imagine the political capital and energy that would have to be spent to, say, take away Council's city cars -- well, you wonder if we're not prioritizing schadenfreude over good policy.
Then you see something like this, from Jeff Shields at the Inquirer:
City Council is looking for some help that it can't seem to find among its 200 employees.
Council approved a resolution last week authorizing up to $50,000 for a consultant to help analyze the city's pension predicament.
In addition, Council has authorized up to $100,000 for a public-relations consultant, even though it already has a communications director, Anthony Radwanski, who makes $96,000.
This is the sort of thing that makes you lose all perspective. The pension analyst is one thing. But a $100,000 public relations consultant? Bear in mind that in addition to Radwanski, numerous council people already have communications people on their staffs (Bill Green hired one a few months ago, although the position has since been eliminated).* Is this for real?
*This line was updated.
Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.










