By Julie Podczaski
Baltimore Watchdog Staff Writer
The City Council Monday failed to override two mayoral vetoes on charter amendments that would have fundamentally shifted budgetary power from the mayor to the council.
Both proposed amendments were adopted by the council by wide margins only a few weeks ago, but neither could gain the 12 votes needed on the 15-member body yesterday to override Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s veto.
The first measure would have allowed the council to add money to the city budget that the mayor proposes every year. Currently, the council is only allowed to cut spending.
The charter amendment passed with a 14-1 vote in April, but last night several council members changed their vote from “yes” to “no,” leading to a 9-5 vote.
The “no” votes came from Councilmen Brandon Scott, Robert Curran, Nick Mosby, William Welch and Councilwoman Rochelle Spector. All except for Scott are leaving the council this year.
Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young expressed disappointment in the vote. He said this was the council’s chance to stand up to the strong mayor form of government.
If the council had overridden the veto, the proposed charter amendment would have been added to the ballot for city voters in the upcoming November election.
“This is about giving our citizens a voice to say ‘yay’ or ‘nay,’” Young said. “When it comes to budget time and you go to your constituents and say, ‘All we can do is cut, we can’t add,’ then look in the mirror and blame yourself.”
The second charter amendment, which would also have needed voter approval in November before it could have taken effect, would have shrunk the size of the powerful Board of Estimates from five to three members.
As it stands now, the board – which must approve all city spending that is more than $25,000 – includes the mayor, the city solicitor, the director of public works, the president of the city council and the comptroller.
The charter amendment would have removed the solicitor and director of public works, both of whom are appointed by and usually vote with the mayor. Removing these two positions would have given the council president and comptroller more say over how money is spent in the city.
That bill was passed a month ago on a 12-1-2 vote, with Mosby voting “no” and Scott and Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke abstaining. Last night, the veto override failed with an 8-5 vote.
Matthew Crenson, a professor emeritus of political science at the Johns Hopkins University, told the Baltimore Sun yesterday that empowering the council to redirect spending would have caused sweeping changes to city government.
“If the mayor has a set of programs linked to the budget but can’t control the budget, it could create some serious problems for the mayor and, possibly, for the operation of the city,” he told the newspaper.
Crenson was also quoted as saying that some members may want to run for mayor in the future and wouldn’t want to “tie the mayor’s hands.”
State Sen. Catherine Pugh, the Democratic front runner for the mayoral election, had previously disapproved of both bills.