The Boston City Council has moved a step closer to increasing its influence over billions of dollars of city spending by unanimously approving the state Attorney General's changes to a November ballot question that would ask: Should the council, and the public, wield more power in the city’s budget process?
The measure would allow the council to answer the mayor’s initial budget “in whole, or in part,” with amendments, rather than simply accepting or rejecting the proposal. It would also give the council the authority to override a mayoral budget veto with a two-thirds vote, if the mayor rejects the council’s changes. Both are powers the 13-member body does not currently hold.
The charter change would preserve the mayor’s power to generate an initial budget, setting the spending plan’s ceiling. It would also set in motion the crafting of a participatory budgeting process for residents to directly weigh-in on how the city spends a portion of its money.
The change would make Boston budgeting more like those of cities such as Denver, Colo., Washington, D.C., and New York City. Though they lack the same strong mayor system Boston has, Cambridge and Hartford, Conn., have used participatory budgeting to allocate a portion of municipal money since 2014 and 2015, respectively.
The move, which would weaken the long-standing mayoral dominion over Boston’s budget, comes after a contentious 2020 budget season, which split the council down ideological and racial lines over spending on police and other municipal services. The pending ballot question, proposed by councilor Lydia Edwards, is a measure she and others say would enable the council to be more responsive to voters’ concerns.
“That the mayor has so much unilateral power and that all we can do is respond perfunctorily, with a yes or no, is a problem,” Edwards said, pointing to Boston’s strong-mayor system which gives the mayor authority over most matters.
Former city councilor Larry DiCara said if put to voters and passed, the charter change would be a major one — perhaps a “7” on a scale of one to ten.
“The mayor of Boston is a high-profile figure,” who holds the bulk of governing power by design, DiCara said. “City leaders who advocated for that [configuration] in 1909 have been followed by many who have done likewise.”
DiCara said the mayor’s “significant power” makes sense in light of the votes a mayor must earn in order to get the power to govern.
During his last election in 2017, former mayor Marty Walsh garnered about 70,000 votes city wide.
By contrast, At-Large Councilor Michelle Wu, who topped the ticket during her last election in 2019, earned about 41,000 votes.
“That is a very important factor, and nobody votes for mayor without thinking about it,” DiCara said.
Edwards brought the measure to the council in December after last year’s fiercely debated budget.
Edwards voted to pass the budget despite public outcry about the spending plan’s allocations for police and other social services.
A “no” vote, she said, would not have guaranteed real change to police spending, but instead, would have guaranteed uncertainty for public employees whose livelihoods are tied to the spending plan.
“Ultimately, the way our budgeting system is, is what is flawed,” she said, noting that the council has a lack of negotiation leverage.
Opponents of the charter change have said it would force Boston to surrender its fiscally responsible reputation.
Among the nation's cities, Boston's overall fiscal health is one of the strongest mainly because of its reliance on property taxes, which have been a relatively stable funding source in recent years.
Dorchester Councilor Frank Baker was part of the trio who voted against the measure last December.
On Wednesday, however, he, Michael Flaherty and Ed Flynn voted in its favor.
Pointing to the city’s AAA bond rating and consistently strong financial standing, the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, which provides policy analysis in the interest of “efficient, effective and responsible government,” came out against the measure last August.
“Boston needs to continue with strong financial management to maintain its fiscal health, deliver basic services and be prepared and flexible to deal with the changing needs of residents as well as downturns in the economy,” said Pam Kocher, research bureau president, in her testimony to the council.
Edwards said the bureau is out of step with the city’s equity-focused political climate.
“They made clear, to my face, that they don’t consider racial equity in any of their analysis,” Edwards said. “Their perspective of a healthy city is one that has the highest income inequality [and] some of the most segregated neighborhoods, but is producing a lot in terms of income from property taxes.”
In response, Kocher acknowledged that, historically, the bureau has not included racial equity as part of its analysis criteria, but added that “just as the city is now really taking significant, substantial steps to incorporate equity into everything that the city is doing … the research bureau is looking at that as well, and how it can do the same within its own organization.”
Edwards is also pursuing the charter amendment ballot question through a unique provision in state law that allows for changes without legislative interference.
“I’m tired of Boston policy [and] Boston’s future being held in the hands of Chicopee or Weymouth, or Lawrence. I love all those cities, they’re great cities. But, should they really have more impact on our charter and how we run elections and how we allocate our funds than the people of Boston,” she said, referring to the home rule petition process that places some Boston issues — such as skipping a special election — at the mercy of the state legislature.
The state Attorney General’s office, which is responsible for reviewing the proposed charter amendment for consistency with state laws, assessed the original ballot question to be lawfully proposed, but found part of its language in conflict with state law.
The original measure would have set aside half a percent of Boston’s budget to be spent through a city-wide democratic process. That, the attorney general said, would violate state law that all municipal money be deposited into a general fund “unless the monies qualify for deposit into various other types of funds that the Legislature has authorized,” the attorney general’s legal memo said.
The revised measure leaves that provision out and would simply ask voters whether the city should create an Office of Participatory Budgeting and charge that agency with devising a democratic budget process by July 2023.
Before acting mayor Kim Janey exited the council chamber, assumed the interim mayoralty and jumped into the mayor’s race, she supported the ballot question.
Janey’s spokesman Wednesday could not specify whether she still supports the revised measure or would veto it, if it reaches her desk.
