Board members say departments should present budget justifications in person

Committee member 1 said the board should avoid micromanaging departments, arguing the panel should not be making operational decisions about how departments do their work. "But again, I we get pulled into the world of making decisions for other people on how to do their job and I'm just not interested in going down that rabbit hole," the member said.

Committee member 2 described a recurring pattern in which department staff call board members to suggest where cuts should be made. "So something that happens is these departments call me and try to tell me where I should cut their budget," the member said, urging a clearer rule: departments should either accept proposed cuts or come before the board to explain why funds should remain. The member added that some staff say they cannot make the cut but also cannot attend the budget meeting to explain their position.

Responding to that point, Committee member 1 characterized attendance at budget meetings as a basic duty. "This is part of the job of being an elected official. So you have to show up to the budget meetings every once in a while," the member said, pressing colleagues to require explanations from departments that want to retain funding.

Committee member 1 added that departments should be prepared to justify their requests given the board is being asked to expand the tax base and seek more revenue from citizens: "I would argue that they should make the case why they want to keep this money in here."

No formal motions or votes were recorded on this exchange; the discussion focused on internal expectations for departmental engagement during the budget process and on whether the board should require in-person justification for contested budget items.