ShareThis Page
Update budgeting |
Letters to the Editor

Update budgeting

Why has the process used to adopt budgets changed so little over the years? While I like listening to songs from the ’60s and ’70s, I am not sure I want to go back in time. Why do governments continue to use a budget process that was used in the ’60s and ’70s? Maybe because that is what they have always done.

In January 2015, the Government Finance Officers Association released a report on “Best Practices in School District Budgeting.”

The new budget process places emphasis on adopting educational goals (outcomes), evaluating the current status of those goals, determining why the district is not meeting those goals and identifying processes to meet those goals.

The budget process takes a look at how dollars are currently being spent, not on a districtwide basis, but how dollars are allocated to each school, to each student in that school and to each class being taught in that school. The focus is on education, not just on the dollars.

So while many districts and governments are facing difficult times with increasing costs and reduced revenues, there are some answers. The key is where you look for them — in the ’60s and ’70s or in the future.

It’s time for school districts to embrace change, and that change is the GFOA’s “Best Practices in School District Budgeting.”

James W. Gloekler


The writer is a CPA.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.