Alders Override Mayor’s Vetoes

The Board of Alders handed the Harp administration a resounding defeat Monday night, voting 25 – 0 to override mayoral vetoes of policy amendments of the new city budget that takes effect Saturday.

The vote took place at City Hall.

The alders voted to override Mayor Toni Harp’s vetoes of 10 amendments to the final $538.9 million city budget that deal with policy, not changes in how much money New Haven spends.

Among other provisions, the policy amendments require alder approval for spending more than $1 million on police or fire overtime and for changing executive salaries; require the corporation counsel to submit a report on pending lawsuits if it wants to spend money on outside counsel; and holds back $1 million in approved Board of Education money until the state reaches its own new budget.

In vetoing the amendments, Mayor Harp argued that alders were acting beyond their legal authority.

“Tonight’s predictable override of recent mayoral vetoes underscores a genuine difference of legal opinion – between my administration and Board of Alders leadership – about the separate and distinct responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches of city government,” Harp stated in a release issued after the vote.

“My staff and I remain confident about our reading of the Charter’s directive in this regard and will review possible options in the wake of tonight’s action.”

A voice from past Board of Alders debates resurfaced to parry that argument. That voice belongs to Jonathan Einhorn.

In the 1980s, Einhorn was a Westville alderman — and the single most persistent critic of alleged executive overreach.

Now Einhorn is a private lawyer. He authored a memo for the alders supporting their argument that they have charter authority to pass those four vetoed provisions.

“The budget of the City of New Haven is an ordinance, without question,” Einhorn wrote in the nearly five-page memo addressing each point of the mayor’s objections in her vetoes. ​“Article VIII of the Charter governs budgetary procedure. Although the mayor in her veto message questions the aldermanic powers to implement policy through the budget, in fact, implementing policy is exactly what is required of both the mayor and the alders in Article VIII (see, i.e., Article VIII, Sec. 1.A(1)).” (Click here to read the full memo.)

Annex Alder Al Paolillo Jr., who led the charge for the provisions, cited Einhorn’s arguments in speaking on the floor Monday night before the vote. Paolillo was the only alder to speak during the meeting. The alders voted once to override all vetoes in one package.

Paolillo said the Code of Ordinances that govern the board’s authority, which can be found in Article VII: Budgetary and Financial Administration, Section 2 – 374 Policy Amendments, has existed for nearly 25 years.

“So there is no question that the Board of Alders can approve policy amendments,” he said. ​“In fact, we have done so each year that this mayor has been in office, and the mayor has signed off on them each time up until now.”

After the vote, mayoral Chief of Staff Tomas Reyes, who watched the vote in the aldermanic chamber Monday, predicted ​“it isn’t going to hamper the mayor’s ability to administer the city.”

Monday night’s vote is the latest instance of efforts by the alders to assert more authority as a check on the executive branch of government. Four years ago they succeeded in passing a charter revision that gives them the authority to reject top mayoral appointments such as the fire and police chiefs and the development administrator; and that converted the Board of Education from a fully mayorally appointed body to a hybrid elected-appointed board.

In a letter sent to alders prior to the meeting seeking support for his candidacy, Marcus Paca, who is challenging Harp for the Democratic mayoral nomination, stated that he ​“commend[s] this board for meeting tonight to consider holding the mayor accountable for continuous lack of information transparency with legislators and voters.”

What Was At Issue

Following are specifics of the policy amendments preserved by the override vote Monday night and Einhorn’s arguments in favor of the alders amendments.

• The amendments prevent the release of money for police and fire overtime above $1 million without new alder approval; and require that the assistant police chief is in charge when the chief is out of town.

The amendments also bar the police department from spending money on salary increases for assistant chiefs until a new police union contract is settled. The department is barred from spending on new lieutenant salaries or reassigning sergeants until a deployment plan for supervisors and patrol officers is presented and discussed with alders.

Alder Paolillo said the amendment’s purpose was to maintain ​“open lines of communication unlike with the past administration and to be crystal clear as to the direction of the department.”

Harp called these amendments an attempt to ​“directly administer the Police Department” in violation of powers clearly spelled out in the city charter. She said it would also ​“bring an unwelcome political dimension to key public safety staffing decisions.”

Einhorn argued that ​“the use of these funds is a budgetary issue, the alders are not legally constrained from such a requirement,” and ​“it is solely a subjective determination as to who best should make such a decision.”

On the issue of who should oversee the police department in the absence of the police chief, Einhorn wrote that ​“the Mayor can point to no legal prohibition on this amendment.”

Einhorn also argued that ​“the authority to grant pay raises belongs to the budgetary authority, [which is] the Board of Alders. Presumably, this power would be exercised within the scope of any such contract.”

• Another amendment requires any proposed salary increases for executive management and confidential employees come before the board for approval.

Paolillo said the reason the charter requires the involvement of the Board of Alders in the budget process is ​“so that it can exercise its sound judgment as to whether or not certain costs and policies are reasonably necessary. The board is responsible for the total amount of money that needs to be spent. To ignore the requirements in that charter in that regard is to ignore the electors and approval — a situation expressly prohibited by the charter.”

Alders had raised objections to an unapproved raise for mayoral aide Jason Bartlett in particular.

Harp responded in her veto message that once the alders set acceptable salary ranges, they have no power over decisions made within those ranges.

Einhorn called the mayor’s rationale on vetoing this amendment ​“a subjective policy determination as to the costs involved to taxpayers in salary raises. No legal basis is set forth for the mayor’s objection.”

• One amendment bars the corporation counsel from spending money for outside contracts until a summary report on investigation that has been requested by Board President Tyisha Walker provided; requires the corporation counsel to forward all outside contracts to the board for an alder committee hearing prior to being entered into; and also bars the office from spending any city money until a report is produced on ​“all pending investigations, audits, reviews, inquiries concerning city departments that are currently underway.”

In her veto letter, Harp argued that the alders lack authority over how the corporation counsel spends its allotted budget and violates the confidentiality of information on pending investigations and lawsuits. The amendment would leave ​“pending legal cases … un-lawyered, resulting in” avoidable losses,” she wrote.

Harp argued that once the alders set acceptable salary ranges, they have no power over decisions made within those ranges.

Again, Einhorn argued that Harp’s objections weren’t based on legal grounds. ​“Merely because certain investigations are confidential does not prohibit the Board of Alders from an understanding of the general issues, perhaps through leadership, as is commonly done in the state and federal government,” he wrote.

• The alders sequestered $1 million in approved Board of Education spending until the state completes its own budgeting process. New Haven, like other Connecticut cities, had by law to pass a new municipal budget without knowing how much state aid they’ll get.

That’s because the state legislature was unable to pass a new budget during a regular session as it faced a $5.1 billion two-year deficit. Legislators will meet again later this month to try again.

Meanwhile, the state has consistently cut millions of promised education aid dollars to the city already and may cut more.

The alders sought to have more say over how the eventual dollars are spent and important budget-cutting choices are taken.

Harp responded that the alders lack any legal authority to sequester education money. Unlike with other departments, the alders get once a year to vote up or down the entire education budget — and that’s it —with no line-item authority. The Board of Education, a state-chartered entity, crafts the detailed budget.

Einhorn argued in his opinion that, again, the mayor’s argument did not site any statute or case law to support her claim.

“Indeed, with the City Largely dependent on state funding, and with the state budget in flux as of this writing, such a requirement appears quite prudent,” he wrote.

Amendment Text

The full text of the 10 amendments follows:

1. Before any funds in police and fire overtime above 1 million dollars may be released, the Departments will need to get Board of Alders approval.

2. When the Chief of Police is out of the city then the Assistant Chief of Operations shall be in charge.

3. Any proposed increases in the salaries of Executive Management and Confidential Employees must be submitted to the Board of Alders for approval.

4. Board of Education funding in the amount of $1,000,000 be sequestered and held pending the outcome of the State budget process and approval of the Board of Alders for its release.

5. No city funds shall be expended by the Corporation Counsel’s office for any outside contracts prior to the summary report on investigations requested by the Board President being provided to her.

6.All Outside contracts in Corporation Counsel shall be forwarded to the Board of Alders for a hearing by the appropriate committee of the Board of Alders before they can be entered into by the City or the Corporation Counsel.

7. No city funds shall be expended by the Corporation Counsel office prior to the provision to the Board of Alders of a report from said office on all pending investigations, audits, reviews, inquiries concerning city departments that are currently underway.

8. The Department of Police Services shall not expend any funds for the increases for Assistant Chiefs until the police union contract is settled and shall not expend any funds for new Lieutenants nor reassign any Sergeants until a deployment plan for patrol cops and supervisors has been presented to and discussed with the Board of Alders.

9. The Board of Alders shall act on any Executive Management salary increases proposed by the Mayor within 120 days of the meeting that it is communicated to the Board of Alders.

10. In FY17-18 any additional funding for the Connecticut Open beyond what was budgeted must come before the Board of Alders for approval and in FY 18 – 19 and future years any funding over $100,000 for the Connecticut Open must come before the Board of Alders for approval.

Paul Bass contributed to this report.