So much for "civility" -- council majority attacks Muir for merely suggesting a modicum of fiscal caution

Looks like that whole "civility" thing ended as soon as unanimity for rubber-stamping Gus Vina's agenda stopped.

First, let's acknowledge that Council Member Mark Muir's request for a hiring freeze and analysis of staffing levels is belated, possibly politically motivated, and inconsistent with his prior votes to go along with expanding Vina's bureaucracy (though he does have the legitimate point that the sudden decision to spend $10 million on Pacific View makes a significant change in the city's financial health).

That said, the substance of Muir's proposal is quite sensible. We still have no plan for paying for road maintenance and unfunded pension liabilities, plus the new debt service and operating costs for the Hall Park and Pacific View, so why not pause any new hires until somebody can explain where all the money is supposed to come from?

The response from the council majority was shrill.

Tony Kranz:

“I will be governing, and not playing politics,” Councilman Tony Kranz said as he described why he was voting against the proposal put forward by fellow Councilman Mark Muir.

Lisa Shaffer's e-mail newsletter:

Seriously, Mr. Muir? Deputy Mayor Muir proposed an agenda item related to the budget and staffing. He asked that we consider it first before looking at the overall operating budget. The agenda report said that he felt "it would be prudent for the city to implement a temporary hiring freeze" until the financial plan for Pacific View is determined. He further proposed that positions approved by the Council since January 2013 and any future positions should be reviewed "to determine if the position is meeting our community and councils [sic] needs and expectations." The timing of the item, coming just as we begin our budget discussions, seemed a bit odd to me. The budget process is how we determine funding strategies and staffing levels. So why, at the start of the process, less than a month from the scheduled adoption of a budget on which he will be voting, would he make this proposal?

Wouldn't the start of the process be the appropriate time to make such a suggestion, unless the budget had already been informally agreed to in backroom deals, and the public process was merely theater?

Teresa Barth's weekly e-mail newsletter:

The proposed FY14/15 Operating Budget includes funding for all operating costs, all proposed increases and fully funds the operating reserves and budget stabilization reserves. Resulting in an ending fund balance of $7.2M which will be available for additional capital improvement projects and/or bond debt payments.

Additionally, since 2012 operational efficiencies resulted in an annual savings of $1M in payroll and operating expenses. Reforms enacted in 2011 have already reduced pension obligations.

So what was Muir's proposal really all about? Just petty politics or a serious effort to sabotage the purchase of the Pacific View? Based on previous actions, I think the later.

Councilmembers Muir and Gaspar continue to engage in these fiscal calamity scare tactics even though the facts simply do not support their allegations. I believe they will continue with their efforts at the May 21 meeting when we discuss financing options for the purchase.

While we haven't seen the budget details yet, here are a few questions citizens might want to ask of Mayor Barth:

1) Despite Vina's claimed $1 million in "operational efficiencies," isn't it true that staffing costs actually increased during the time in question, and will continue to increase every year?

2) Isn't it true that Vina's budget continues to underfund road maintenance and allow road conditions to decay just as they did under the Stocks council?

3) Isn't it true that Vina's budget continues to underfund pension liabilities just as budgets did under the Stocks council?

4) That $7.2 million fund balance is not recurring revenue, but the last cash left in the bank from prior city councils. Vina's six-year financial plan, unlike prior budgets, appears to allocate no revenues for the next five years to capital improvement. Do you really think it's prudent management to have your only plan for future capital improvement be to spend Encinitas' last reserves?

And finally, how the heck is asking for a temporary hiring freeze and staffing analysis "a serious effort to sabotage the purchase of the Pacific View?"  Let's tone down the overheated rhetoric.