Citizen involvement in the county budget process in Georgia.

• Author: Alexander, Ross

Introduction and Literature Review

This study addresses a simple research question: How involved are citizens in the county budget process in the state of Georgia? It also addresses some secondary research questions: To what degree are citizens involved in the county governmental process in general? How has the Taxpayers Bill of Rights affected citizen involvement in the county budget process in Georgia? How involved should citizens be in that governmental process? Do budget professionals desire more or less citizen involvement in the county budget process? How do citizens participate in that governmental process, and what, specifically, can be done to increase their involvement? In order to measure the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process in Georgia, the authors of this study surveyed budget and finance directors in all 159 counties in the state because they are the most qualified to comment upon the level of citizen involvement in the budget process, the effect of their involvement on the budget process, the various methods of citizen participation in that governmental process, and whether or not increased citizen involvement in that aspect of local government is even desirable.

Many scholars argue that any citizen involvement in local government (including the budget process) is positive and should be cultivated and encouraged by both elected and appointed officials. (1) Others, however, note that citizen participation in the county budget process does not always have the desired positive outcomes. (2) These differences aside, most public administration scholars agree that citizen participation in government is desirable and should be encouraged, but they concede that such involvement is episodic and sporadic at best, and can, at times, prove detrimental to the functioning and administration of government. (3) Sidney Verba, Kay Scholzman, and Henry Brady contend that while it is important to understand who participates in the governmental process, it is equally important to understand what they say and what they desire from government as a result of their participation. (4) Renee A. Irvin and John Stansbury argue that citizen participation is almost always desirable, but there are conditions that determine when it is effective and when it is not. Consequently, it is the responsibility of managers and elected officials to facilitate situations whereby citizen participation can have the most positive impact upon the governmental process. (5) Kaifeng Yang adds that it is vital that citizens believe that their participation in government is worthwhile and will have a substantive effect on policy decisions. Public administrators, in turn, must trust citizens and believe that their input is both genuine and meaningful. (6)

Few studies exist which examine the role of citizens in the county budget process. Most scholars and practitioners agree that citizen involvement in that governmental process is limited, except when tax increases are proposed. It appears that the financial intricacies of the budget often confuse, bore, or simply do not pertain to many citizens. Nonetheless, these studies agree that citizens should be more involved in the county budget process. (7) Defining, exactly, what role citizens should play in that process, however, is more difficult.

This study will contribute to the literature on citizen involvement in government in several ways. First, it focuses on the budget process at the county level of government exclusively. Second, its findings suggest that not only are citizens relatively uninvolved in that governmental process, but also that many county budget and finance officials do not particularly desire their input. Third, it finds that even when county budget and finance officials support and cultivate citizen involvement, their efforts may not translate into increased citizen participation in government.

Taxpayer's Bill of Rights

The enactment of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TBOR) by the Georgia legislature in 1999, which seeks to prevent indirect taxation and to enhance the rights of an individual property owner in opposing a tax increase, has had a significant impact on the budget process for county commissioners, budget and finance professionals, school boards, and city councils. TBOR has directly affected the tax assessor function of local government, influenced the administration of the budget process, and heightened the responsibilities of taxing authorities in Georgia.

Before the adoption of TBOR, local governments could have enacted "back door" tax increases based on the inflationary growth in the jurisdiction's digest. County commissions could levy the same millage in the current fiscal year as they did in the previous fiscal year and generate additional tax dollars as a result of the inflationary growth in the digest? TBOR seeks to apprise citizens of such tax increases, facilitate their participation in the budget process, and empower them to offer feedback. According to the provisions of the law, local governments must:

1. calculate a roll back millage rate to compensate for inflationary growth in digest value

2. in the event of a property tax increase, hold three public hearings to discuss the increase

3. publish a notice of the increase in the jurisdiction's legal organ

4. issue a press release to local media explaining the increase.

An additional caveat of this law requires that in the event that public hearings must be held, one of the three hearings must begin between six and seven o'clock in the evening. Two of the three required public hearings, however, might coincide with other mandatory hearings associated with the millage rate process. Local government officials must also publish a notice in newspapers a week in advance of these required public hearings. While this process is ponderous, strict adherence to these procedures must be observed before the jurisdiction's digest can be approved by the State of Georgia's Department of Revenue. TBOR may be riddled with cumbersome calculations and detailed procedures, but it offers an opportunity for substantive citizen involvement in the county budget process. (9)

Methodology

The authors of this study mailed a one-page survey to budget and finance directors (or the person most responsible for the budget) in all 159 Georgia counties. The survey primarily elicited responses regarding citizen involvement in the county budget process. It also sought to measure citizen involvement in the county governmental process in general. The survey asked respondents to provide demographic data about their respective counties, including population and annual operating budget (general fund). It also asked budget and finance officials to comment on the level of citizen involvement in their county's budget process, the level of citizen participation in their county's governmental process in general, the impact of TBOR on the level of citizen involvement in their county's budget process, the degree to which citizens should be involved in that process, and whether or not they would like to see more or less citizen involvement in that aspect of local government. Next, respondents were asked to rank the methods of citizen involvement in the county budget process from those that occur most frequently to those that occur less frequently (e.g., phone calls, e-mail, faxes, face-to-face contact, attendance at public meetings, via elected officials or media). In an open-ended fashion, the survey also asked respondents what, specifically, could be done to encourage greater citizen involvement in the county budget process. (10)

Budget and finance officials were chosen to respond to the survey for several reasons. First, they are most familiar with the county budget process, including the financial intricacies, nuances, legal regulations, and political pressures associated with it. Second, they are most familiar with the impact of TBOR on the level of citizen participation in the budget process in their respective counties. Third, they could comment substantively not only upon the level of citizen participation in the budget process, but also upon the level of citizen participation in the county governmental process in general, with a high degree of authority. Finally, budget and finance officials could best identify the methods by which citizens are currently involved in the county budget process and can offer solutions or strategies for increasing citizen participation in that governmental process.

Results

The authors of this study received answers to their survey from 102 county budget and finance directors (out of a possible 159), an encouraging sixty-four percent response rate. In those responses, one immediately sees a tremendous variation in both population size and annual operating budget among the counties. Some counties have less than 5,000 residents while others have more than...