Mayor Toni Harp wrote the following opinion article in response to last week’s vote by the Board of Alders to override her vetoes of policy amendments to the new city budget. (Click here to read a new story about that.)
Consider this: I‑95 is shut down one busy summer weekend, the chief of police is out of town, and officers can’t be mobilized to help thousands of cars and trucks through New Haven because the Board of Alders (BOA) won’t agree on a preferred chain-of-command in the chief’s absence.
Or this: unions representing Yale employees stage a massive rally and tie-up traffic, ordinarily calling for mass arrests, but the police department must simply ignore the disruption because it’ll take days – even weeks – before the next Board of Alders meeting when overtime costs might – or might not – be approved.
These nightmarish scenarios could come to pass if the deliberative branch of city government – the Board of Alders – assumes executive authority of city departments.
A recent series of BOA-approved policy alterations, disguised as budget amendments, erode thoughtful, time-honored Separation of Powers provisions built into the city Charter. Essentially, these elected officials granted themselves additional authority at the expense of effective, efficient, and professionally administered city government.
I vetoed the amendments because I feel they put the integrity of the city Charter at risk; in its exuberance, the BOA voted last week to override those vetoes.
The trouble is, even in the private sector a ‘separation of powers’ is relied upon to disengage a corporate board of directors or trustees from a chief executive or operating officer. Even in the private sector it is standard operating procedure for a deliberative board to consider ‘big picture’ issues, invite input from others, and take time for internal debate, while an executive management team administers day-to-day matters and others demanding immediate attention.
In New Haven, it’s simply a question of which government branch, in this case a 30-member board or the one featuring a clear, concise chain of responsibility and supervision, is best suited to debate longer-term topics like budgets and ordinances, or best suited to respond to shorter-term issues like managing snowstorms and filling potholes.
It is my strong opinion, after nearly 30 years in public office, that an executive branch of government must remain independent, nimble, and autonomous in matters specific to administrative functions. Scores of daily decisions cannot be subjected to – and effectively held hostage by – the debate, deliberation, and likely delay that characterize the BOA process.
Another potential pitfall in BOA control of administrative functions is its parochial nature. Its leaders yield considerable authority, yet remain accountable only to voters in their individual wards. A mayor is elected by an at-large, citywide vote, making the mayor accountable to the entire city and all its residents. Again I suggest an Executive Branch has the best perspective to balance all the city’s needs, consider all its options, and anticipate all possible results of its administrative decisions.
This recent disagreement between my administration and BOA leadership transcends any mayoral administration and any incarnation of the BOA. The very foundation of New Haven’s city government is being reconsidered at its peril. At risk is a responsive, responsible city government.
The balance of power built into the city Charter – just as it is built into the state and U.S. Constitution – is jeopardized by the self-appointed, additional authority recently granted to the Board of Alders by the Board of Alders.
I will continue to uphold the venerable history and tradition of the City of New Haven, its Charter, and its residents in the face of this threat.