Yesterday, I received an email from the state Addictions and Mental Health (AMH) Division entitled: “Why Zero? Followup”.  Attached was a letter from Richard L. Harris, Interim Assistant Director. (Click here to read the letter.)  I was not the only recipient.  The email was sent to well over a hundred people, outside and inside government.

Here are some quotes:

"AMH has supported restoration of the Office of Consumer Affairs every budget cycle since the program was cut in the last round of budget cuts in 2003.  AMH fully supports this concept and we will continue to do so.  It is unfortunate that the proposal has not made it through the next steps of the process.  But the decision not to fund this program has not been made by AMH.  Others in the process have not made this a priority."

"AMH wants to work with the consumer movement to obtain the necessary support from key legislators, the Governor, stakeholders and other advocates in championing a new Office of Consumer Affairs.  Without champions in the legislature and the Governor, the possibility of getting this program restored is doubtful.  AMH cannot be the sole 'official' entity advocating for this concept."

Here is my commentary:

In a public world in which “transparency” and “accountability” are constantly touted as positive values, the state budget process is opaque and evasive.  Yes, I admit to knowing some of the basics.  The agencies (such as DHS) submit budget proposals to the Governor.  The Governor decides what to propose to the legislature.  The legislature then hears from agencies (that must support the Governor’s proposal) and citizens and makes the final decision.  Later on, agencies do things like “reshoots” and “rebalances” and money is shifted around to address bulges and gaps.  There are also things like “continuing service levels,” “essential budget levels,” “Christmas tree bills” and “roll-ups” whose workings seem to be understood only by people in capes and pointed hats.

In addition to state general funds that get the lion's share of attention, there are also federal match dollars, grant funding and, for AMH, block grant funding.  And there are probably a lot of things I have not mentioned or know about.  And that is the rub among advocates.

It can appear to a mere mortal that huge sums get allocated and spent (or not spent) mysteriously.  And there are often no fingerprints to show who made the critical decisions.  Note in the first paragraph that I quoted above, Richard is clear about who is NOT responsible (AMH) but vague about whom IS responsible.  This isn’t because Richard is hiding the ball; he’s just reporting how things work.

His advice is sound, at least for state general funds.  One must work tirelessly to move any proposal higher on the state's priority list.  Will AMH truly do that for consumers?  Will it demonstrate that effort through it's own prioritization and use of block grant funds?  Will it support consumer efforts to reach the key decision-makers?  Those who value transparency and accountability are curious to find out.