Even though writing about budgets is part of reporting, there’s no way to present a story with sufficient detail to give the public anything more than a general idea of how a proposed financial package is going to work. Or not work, as the case may be.
Even on the local level — never mind the monsters state governments create or the labyrinthine federal budgets that routinely thwart even the purest of scholars (presidential candidates have no chance at all) — a substantial spending-and-revenue plan involves more entries than can be explored and explained in the amount of time and space allotted.
The problem is not so much the numbers themselves, but understanding why they are what they are. Even the people who produce or adjust these numbers don’t have all the answers, as their entries are often variations of figures established by their predecessors.
This is why, as the Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors and its budget committee work on the community’s next budget, our stories concentrate on the highlights: how spending and revenue compare to the year before, how proposed assessments stack up against the current ones, and what major programs, enterprises and opinions drive the overall plan.
The purpose of such stories, in addition to giving people some idea of how they will be affected, is to encourage them to ask their own questions of the governing body.
The issue is not whether a widget should cost $1 or $5, but the political and business philosophy that drives the decision to buy the widget in the first place.
Former director Marty Clarke this week publicly challenged the continuation of a financial set aside plan to cover future expenditures that have yet to be determined. He also says his plan would knock $138 off next fiscal year’s assessment.
In the scheme of things, $138 isn’t that much — a little more than two cups of coffee a week at your local convenience store — so the greater question is why that $138 is necessary. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. No amount of coverage is going to settle that argument, thereby putting the onus on property owners to become more involved if they have questions and then to decide for themselves.
Even on the local level — never mind the monsters state governments create or the labyrinthine federal budgets that routinely thwart even the purest of scholars (presidential candidates have no chance at all) — a substantial spending-and-revenue plan involves more entries than can be explored and explained in the amount of time and space allotted.
The problem is not so much the numbers themselves, but understanding why they are what they are. Even the people who produce or adjust these numbers don’t have all the answers, as their entries are often variations of figures established by their predecessors.
This is why, as the Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors and its budget committee work on the community’s next budget, our stories concentrate on the highlights: how spending and revenue compare to the year before, how proposed assessments stack up against the current ones, and what major programs, enterprises and opinions drive the overall plan.
The purpose of such stories, in addition to giving people some idea of how they will be affected, is to encourage them to ask their own questions of the governing body.
The issue is not whether a widget should cost $1 or $5, but the political and business philosophy that drives the decision to buy the widget in the first place.
Former director Marty Clarke this week publicly challenged the continuation of a financial set aside plan to cover future expenditures that have yet to be determined. He also says his plan would knock $138 off next fiscal year’s assessment.
In the scheme of things, $138 isn’t that much — a little more than two cups of coffee a week at your local convenience store — so the greater question is why that $138 is necessary. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. No amount of coverage is going to settle that argument, thereby putting the onus on property owners to become more involved if they have questions and then to decide for themselves.