![]() |
![]() |
Mayor Glover is against building a dog park on Clyde Fant Parkway. He thinks the money should be used to build a park for children. Local dog park activists and dog lovers across the country are all over him about being an "animal hater."
The cartoon would have been more accurate if the Pelican was wearing an LSU Tigers shirt.
Last edited by Dawg06; 09-21-2012 at 11:46 AM.
I thought LSUS was NOT LSU. That is my understanding. As such LSUS has no business transferring funds, especially not self-generated funds, to anyone! not even another LSU-affiliated entity. As an alum of LSUS I find this troubling.
I will be in S'port next week. Plan to pop in for a lil visit....
The system can redistribute funds between the institutions, but I am surprised that LSUS (who isn't in great financial shape anyways) would transfer SELF-GENERATED funds to another LSU system institution. That's crazy. That would be a good indication that LSUS needs to get out of the LSU system.
Update from the Shreveport Times:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120921/NEWS0402/120921040/LSUS-chancellor-explains-budget-transfer
Response from LSU-Shreveport:
No actual cash was given to the LSU Law Center by LSU Shreveport. The $400,000 referenced was budget authority for Self-Generated Revenues. Budgets are nothing more than an educated guess as to what will happen in a given year. LSU Shreveport anticipated that we would have $18.7 million in self-generated revenues for FY 11-12, but our actual self-generated revenues for the year totaled $18.1 million – thus LSUS had excess budget authority for the year of approximately $700,000.
The LSU Law Center had the opposite happen. They had actual revenues that exceeded their budget authority of approximately $900,000 – which they could not spend without their budget authority being increased. LSU Alexandria , LSU Eunice, and LSU Shreveport came to the LSU Law Center’s aid and transferred a combined $900,000 in budget authority to the LSU Law Center so that they could spend the revenues that they had generated last fiscal year.
Last edited by TechAlum05; 09-21-2012 at 05:37 PM.
Oh.
I do budgets too. Tis a cumbersome and silly process. Well, it's necessary, of course, but the process can be greatly improved AND the Budget Unit Heads, those responsible for the individual units, need more unilateral authority to manage/allocate their budgets. The oversight would come from regular audits and more importantly, the immediate "supervisor" of the unit head.
For instance, the athletic director should have 100% leeway to allocate resources as needed, and the state auditors would check to make sure no laws were broken, and in this case, the AD would answer directly to the Prez, or maybe a Veep, who would then confer with the Prez.
"Government" is way too inefficient and a lot of that is the code designed to keep managers from misallocating funds. My system does too, which whole lot less fuss and bother.
Oh, one more thing, and this is where the real SILLINESS comes in. The code requires someone in a management position to sign-off on budgets, expenditures, etc... But, it also allows said authority to designate someone to act in his/her stead. And that is usually some civil servant clerk (admin assistant). So, the checks and balances is nothing more than a bunch of $30K/year civil servants all "okaying" the very items they have no authority to.
I'm serious.