As expected, Syracuse common councilors Tuesday unanimously agreed to move forward with $16 million in budget cuts despite the mayor’s attempt to stop them. The vote overriding the mayor’s vetoes marks the end of an unusually contentious budget process.
Councilors methodically plowed through 45 amendments restoring their budget cuts without public explanation. The spending plan keeps taxes flat and eliminates a proposed water rate increase.
Councilors have come under criticism from the mayor’s office and the media for the lack of transparency and public discussion about the more than 80 amendments cutting department spending across the board.
All councilors quickly left chambers or declined comment, continuing to defer to acting president and Democratic mayoral primary candidate Pat Hogan. When questioned by reporters, he defended the council’s action.
“These were open public meetings where anybody can attend the budget at anytime," Hogan said.
However, at no time was the public invited to hear the drafted amendments that came after those departmental budget hearings. Hogan was pressed to answer why.
“So why not have meetings in a public forum so people can listen to the rationale as to…” asked a reporter.
Hogan spoke over the reporter before he could finish asking his question.
“Well, obviously, obviously, obviously, obviously when you're questioning the department heads about their budget, you don't make a decision right off the bat,” Hogan said.
Mayor Ben Walsh spoke to reporters after the council's vote.
“There has been zero public dialogue about the amendments that the council made, so this is the council's budget," Walsh said. “I've asked department heads to develop their plans per the council's budget. That is in process. The goal is next week to sit down and review draft contingency budgets, we’ll make any final changes. Unlike the Council's process, we do intend to be very transparent and open with what those decisions are.”
Walsh said there doesn’t appear to be anything illegal about the council’s lack of transparency, but does say they’ve been disingenuous by not offering opportunities for public feedback on their controversial amendments.
