At last night’s Springfield City Council meeting, Councilor Tim Rooke proposed an amendment to Rules and Orders (Rule 10G) that would affect how new spending proposals might emerge. Rooke’s rule suggests that expenditures ought to be tied to the budget. This would appear to be a practical approach to fiscal matters, but the ensuing debate shone a light on some of the local government’s past approach to such proposals.
The discussion also displayed a tone of openness to change, showing signs that councilors have learned at least one lesson from the city’s budget crisis: repeating bad practices will not yield success; new methods must be attempted, and the public deserves the chance to see the government holding itself fiscally accountable.
Following is a transcript of the relevant portion of the meeting.
Councilor Tim Rooke: This is maybe the third time that I’ve brought this item up. I thought the timing was convenient, especially with the talk that the Springfield Financial Control Board might be phased out at some date.
To put it in simple terms, it would require that the mayor, or the City Council, or the School Committee—anyone who would like to make a suggestion for additional services or to eliminate services—would have to identify within the budget where that money is going to come from.
So if we wanted to hire 20 new housing code inspectors, we would have to identify in the budget somewhere where that money is coming from, rather than just making a blanket statement and not identify any funding sources for it.
Councilor Bruce Stebbins: I rise in support of this. Obviously, I think the trend we’ve seen in Washington with the change in leadership—they also have adopted kind of a pay as you go process. If you’re going to ask for additional spending, or if you’re going to make cuts, you have to delineate where that money would be coming from, for the additional expenditures and where the cuts would have to happen.
I guess my question is, if we do approve this, and adopt this, is this change to our regulations and bylaws for next year, or is it an order of the council—do we have a period of waiting that we have to do?
Rooke: It would be my hope that we would pass to make it effective for this year, particularly [in] the new budget cycle, however… I believe that’s the interpretation of the clerk.
City Clerk Wayman Lee: New rules can be added during the season, but it requires a two-thirds vote.
Councilor Bud Williams: I didn’t support this in its inception, and I won’t be supporting this tonight. The reason is that if we generated the revenues, I can understand it. This body has the ability—we only cut if we’re involved in the budgetary process. That’s stated by ordinance, by Mass General Law.
I understand what Councilor Rooke is going with, and I commend his effort. I just don’t think—it would kind of tie the hands of this particular body. For example, if I said to Commissioner Flynn, I’d like an additional 50 police officers, that means I have to identify where we’re going to pay 50 police officers.
That becomes the mayor’s responsibility, that becomes the [control] board’s responsibility at that point in time. It sounds like it’s a noble move, but that would… If you want to call for more code enforcement, if you want to call for more schoolteachers, I mean, that would say—where’s the money coming from?
That would be a difficult task for this body, when we don’t have the ability to generate revenues. All we can do, when we had those restricted powers, was to cut the budget. We cut budgets. So I would not be supporting this for that particular reason. If I think we need more police officers, I want to call for more police officers, and it’s up to our financial team to help us figure out how we pay for certain things.
Unless we’re going to be at the budgetary table, at the beginning of the budget process, then I would say, ‘We need more police officers,’ and the mayor would say, ‘Well, we could do this, or we could do that,’ or Mr. Ianello could say, ‘We could do this, or we could do that.’
It sounds noble, and it sounds pretty good, but I think in real reality, I don’t want to be restricted and confined by that.
I think the notion [is] that sometimes individuals make suggestions, or make requests, that we can’t pay for.
I will continue to call for more police officers when I think we need them, more code enforcement when we need them, and it’s up to the mayor, and whatever department’s involved, to sit down with this body and figure out how we do it.
Councilor Rosemarie Mazza-Moriarty: I rise to support this measure. I think that part of what will be accomplished by this is no more grandstanding by people who want to say we need more police officers. I think we all agree, we need more police officers.
However, we also realize we have limited funds, and we have to make choices how we’re going to fund the different necessities, the necessary services that are here in the city of Springfield.
I think the stumbling block is probably the communication between the administration during the budgetary process, and our responsibility for not involving ourselves more in that process, or having more of a role in it.
I know Councilor Rooke has attended budget meetings in the past, but of course, I think in that instance he’s had the opportunity to get that knowledge. However, we all haven’t always had that same opportunity, or been notified when certain departments are meeting, or how that is happening, which limits, as Councilor Williams says, our ability to find those revenues, or those dollars, or make those choices.
I think we, as a city council, need to take more budgetary responsibility, and having this in place will make us do that.
Again, we are limited, because we can only cut once the budget is presented to us. However, if we are going to make a recommendation, we could then make the cut from where we think that money should come from, and then the mayor will say, ‘Well, yes, that’s reasonable, because we have the funds,’ or, ‘No, that’s not going to work,’ and maybe we can work on another avenue.
So what I would hope that this promotes is that this city council becomes more fiscally responsible, and it requires us to have more communication from the administration.
I don’t know that it’s necessarily a lack on our part all the time, but we need to start banging on some doors to make sure that we get the answers or the information about what’s going on in the budget process. So I rise to support this and hope that it will have an impact on the future budget process.
Councilor William Foley: I understand where Councilor Williams is coming from, but I also think that there are issues that come before this council that we have to be realistic about. I don’t think this says that you can’t stand up on the floor of the city council and say, ‘We need more police officers.’ I think it’s important that we have more police officers, there’s nothing wrong with that, I mean; but if you come before this council with a proposal that says, we’re going to hire 20 police officers, I want 20 police officers hired, and we need to take it from this account or that account, I think it’s critically important that we identify those funding sources.
A number of years ago, there was a proposal by a previous mayor, Mayor Albano, who had an ambitious project where we would hire 150 police officers. That program, while it did promote more public safety, the funding source dried up very quickly after two or three years, and we were left with substantial costs of $5 and $7 million which we didn’t have. So we had to lay off the police officers.
When the debate was held here, this would have been helpful, if the people who were in favor of such a proposal did identify the funding sources that were a year or two out.
So I support this. I don’t think it stymies public debate. I think it just simply says, if you have a proposal, and you’re very serious about it, and bring that proposal for it, then identify that funding source. That is our responsibility.
It doesn’t say that Bud Williams can’t stand up on this floor and say we need to find a way to get more police officers, or we need to find a way to get more people in the fire department out there. It simply says, if you’re going to put forth a specific proposal for 10 or 20, then have a funding source for it.
Councilor Jose Tosado: I also historically have voted against this item that Councilor Rooke has persisted in putting forward, and I’m glad he has. I think at this point I—well, the reasons I had not supported it before is because I thought it stifled heathy debate, if you were forced to identify a funding source for an initiative. So I agree with Councilor Williams.
However, I think we can have that kind of healthy debate, and then when you begin to make a specific proposal, relative to a specific number of hiring, or type of hiring, I think you should then at least have some thoughts or some ideas in terms of a potential source of revenue to fund those positions.
It’s a new age in Springfield. The Financial Control Board, I think, is on its last legs, so to speak. If you listen to what Lt. Gov. Murray was saying recently at AIC, is that come June, they may in fact be gone. And that the reins of government will be given back to local officials.
I think that we’ve come a long way. I think Springfield really has begun to turn the corner on its finances, and I think it’s up to us as responsible elected officials to make sure that we’re responsible in the finances of the city.
I’ve come to the realization that it can’t be business as usual. It can’t be business the way it was in the past. We need to take a more responsive role, in terms of [having] eyes wide open, so to speak, in terms of the finances of the city. So if we are going to be making proposals to increase cost centers, then we ought to be able to identify sources of revenue.
Roll call vote:
Tosado: Yes
Councilor Domenic Sarno: No
Councilor James Ferrera: Yes
Rooke: Yes
Williams: No
Mazza-Moriarty: Yes
Foley: Yes
Stebbins: Yes
Council President Kateri Walsh: Yes
