I’ve learned a few lessons recently about how and why local government budgets don’t make sense. Over the past month, I’ve reported on the city budget and asked government officials and union representatives many questions about financial figures and numbers of layoffs. While the officials answered my questions, some budget figures remained nonsensical. I would like to share with The Sacramento Press' readers the following Guide to Local Government Budget Madness.

Rule #1: The number of “positions” being removed is not the number of “people” being laid off.

Back in May, city officials wrote that that they would cut 387 positions. The budget document said that cuts included the “unfunding of 387 FTE.” (FTE stands for full-time equivalent position.) You might think that means 387 layoffs, but don’t be fooled! The “387 FTE” figure included vacant positions. So, in May, the city estimated it would need to lay off 189 people because 198 positions were vacant, according to acting city spokeswoman Wendy Klock-Johnson. So, 387 positions=189 layoffs.

Here are my two cents for people who write budget documents: Include the number of positions to be deleted along with the numbers of actual layoffs. That way people won’t read 387 FTE and think it means 387 layoffs.

I’m using the 387=189 example to illustrate the logic of budget documents, but those numbers don’t even exist anymore. Sacramento approved its budget earlier this month, and the number of layoffs is now 168.

Rule #2: Budget numbers change all the time, and different groups disagree on the numbers.

To be fair, it makes sense that budget numbers change constantly. The government agencies working with the numbers are trying to find ways to close budget gaps and lower the number of layoffs. The day-to-day number crunching is part of the budget process.

What doesn’t make sense, though, is how clashing groups interpret numbers for budget cuts. Let’s take the example of the failed negotiations between city officials and Sacramento Area Firefighters Local 522. Layoffs of firefighters are part of the city’s budget cuts.

Klock-Johnson said earlier this month that the city sent 68 layoff notices to firefighters. But Local 522 said in a June 17 press release that  “at least 70” pink slips were sent to firefighters. The number of layoff notices was a point of contention between the two groups earlier this month.

Rule #3: You can always count on local governments to bash the state government.

Before the city balanced its budget earlier this month, it faced a $50 million deficit. Sacramento County confronted an even larger budget gap of $180 million before the Board of Supervisors adopted a proposed budget June 17.

But in terms of deficits, the state’s $24.3 billion budget gap takes the cake.

The locals have reason to be upset with the state. It’s the state, after all, that’s saying it wants to borrow $2 billion from local governments to help balance its budget.

Disputes between local governments and the state government prompt local officials to unleash their anger through cliche-laden statements. An aggrieved Mayor Kevin Johnson showed off his way with words in an e-mail to The Sacramento Press in May.

“The very last option should be robbing our city of its fair share of state aid, because that’s just robbing Peter to pay Paul,” he said.

But the state’s problems are so huge they cannot fully be addressed in The Guide to Local Government Budget Madness--the state’s budget nonsense deserves its own guide.

Rule #4: There is no such thing as objective reality when dealing with budgets, layoffs and negotiations between managers and unions.

Language in contracts is always open for interpretation. Assistant City Manager Gus Vina and Local 522 spokeswoman Robin Swanson took wildly opposite views of a recent firefighters’ contract proposal.

Here’s the controversial sentence from the proposal: “Effective June 19, 2010, salary ranges in terms of bi-weekly rates shall be adjusted by five (5%), and are set forth in Exhibit A-2.”

To Vina, the sentence means that firefighters were trying to clinch a 5 percent salary increase that would begin June 19, 2010.

But to Swanson, the proposed contract’s language means that firefighters want to start negotiating for a 5 percent raise in 2010. The union had also been willing to give up a scheduled 5 percent increase for July 2009.

Vina viewed the contract as setting the 2010 raise in stone, while the union viewed it as a starting point for future negotiations. The City Council voted down the proposal.

So, you ask, is there anything in this example that makes sense? Yes, what makes sense are these facts of civic life: Managers and unions live on different planets. Everything is up for debate. And budget numbers -- especially those that refer to people losing jobs -- are not objective. Not now, not ever.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.