(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

By Will Mbah
Candidate for Somerville City Councilor at Large
willmbah.com

As I was listening in on the City Council budget review meetings during June, I paid close attention to the two new procedures, which were added this year and tried to understand how they influenced the final outcome.

First, in March/April, before the Mayor completed the initial draft budget with her agencies, the council members sent in letters, stating their priorities and recommendations for spending.

Second, in late May, after the Mayor had issued the draft Budget Book but before the Council meetings, council members submitted written questions to the agencies and received back written answers.

These new procedures were intended to allow City Council members to more effectively state their priorities and the needs of their constituents. They were designed to be practical solutions to the problem of limited City Council budget powers.

The problem of City Council budget powers

Two laws of the Commonwealth – Municipal Law and the Municipal Finance Law – fix the separate budget responsibilities of the Mayor with the agencies and the City Council. The Mayor must calculate all the line-by-line agency requests and then add them up into the total spending, which must balance precisely with the estimate of tax and other revenues.

The City Council then must review all of the agency requests and it has the power to cut the amount on any line – reducing funding for a program or eliminating a staff position. But it does not have the power to add money for any new staff or program expansion.

Last year, in the Charter Review, there was discussion about whether the Council could be given power to add or transfer budget funds by a Charter amendment, Home Rule petition or a new state law. But the legal and political experts advised that the state legislature would not allow this change, and it was not included in the draft Charter.

The two new procedures were, therefore, a practical compromise, increasing the influence of the Council on agency spending, without being inconsistent with the state laws.

How did the new procedures work?

In March/April, the city counselors delivered to the Mayor their preliminary budget letters. These were posted on the city website (Legistar) in the March 29, 2023 Finance Committee meeting minutes.

In substance, the letters covered many areas of city administration and services, but they emphasized the priorities of affordable housing, housing stability, and services for children and youth. Councilors urged the mayor to find more money for child care assistance, student mental health and more generous assistance to low-income families, including income vouchers and free passes on public transit. They also asked for more effort to assist people struggling with mental health, addiction and family crises, with corresponding reforms to the systems of emergency response.

When the Mayor’s draft budget that appeared in late May, I was pleased to see that it contained many of these policy priorities and recommendations, even though it did not fund the complete list of programs, I would have sought. Nevertheless, the Mayor and agencies appeared to share the priorities of the Council and were committed to expand spending in areas of family and social needs.

Similarly, the new process of trading written questions and answers was effective as a method of public education and a way to streamline the discussions. With clear explanations and relevant data on the computer monitors in front of them, the Council members were able to ask focused, follow-up questions. Their meeting time was efficiently used, and the public could easily follow the points of agreement and disagreement.

Substantive issues that the process brought to light

It was in this context that the most important disagreements emerged. Council members expressed concern that the budget was adding 40 new city staff positions, but almost all of them were middle management rather than “front line” workers and almost none would be union jobs.

New Deputy Directors and Finance Managers with high salaries were proposed for several agencies, as well as new communications specialists and inter-agency support/coordinator positions. In particular, a new deputy was proposed for the City Administrative Officer (CAO), even though this new official had only been working herself for a few weeks. It seemed premature to add a deputy before the main functions of the office were fully clarified.

By contrast, the Mayor had not proposed to add any new urban planners, despite a backlog of work in the OSPCD and lack of staff support for the Council Land Use Committee. Also missing was also funding for a specialist for wage theft investigations and labor rules enforcement – a strong priority of Council members. Broadly, the councilors wanted to see more librarians, child care and youth counselors, and funds to raise wages in lower-pay categories that have been difficult to fill – like lifeguards for the city pools.

Final outcome of the budget review

At the end, the Council members voted to cut from the budget the funding line for the Deputy City Administrator, and they passed three non-binding resolutions, calling for adjustments: (i) to add another planner in OSPCD; (ii) to add an inspector or enforcement officer for wage theft and labor force violations; and (iii) to transfer some free cash (surplus monies) into accounts for housing stability and a modernized city bill payment system – to end delays in making payments to NGO partners and service providers.

The Mayor made these adjustments and, when they took their final votes, several of the council members expressed their satisfaction with this year’s budget review. The practical improvements to the process helped to create a streamlined, more focused, and understandable review and had created a budget more responsive to Council priorities and citizen needs.