Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables review of draft appropriation language after collective-bargaining concerns
Summary
Two proposed rule additions (items 4 and 5) that would insert dense state-law language on council appropriation powers were tabled Dec. 9 after members raised concerns about collective-bargaining implications and requested a solicitor opinion; the committee said the proposals are intended as educational clarifications of existing law.
Two proposed insertions to the council rules (items 4 and 5) were presented to the Charter & Rules committee Dec. 9. Chair Meg McGrath Smith read written language supplied by Councilor Kevin Jordan that cites state law and charter provisions on appropriation authority and limits.
Councilor Kevin Jordan's text was read into the record: "I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight. However ... the point of items 4 and 5 on the agenda is to bring important sections of state law and the charter to the attention of councilors so they understand their powers as counselors." Members said the intent is educational and intended to make relevant state provisions more accessible to newer councilors.
But Councilor Devine raised a substantive concern: "Some of this language is a violation of collective bargaining," he said, arguing that appropriation actions risk stepping into the executive branch's role and could create unfair-labor-practice exposure. Solicitor Bissonnette agreed the language is dense and said parts mirror state law but "there are subtexts to this" that merit careful analysis. He noted the proposed insertions appeared to reach into complex fiscal and labor topics and recommended additional review.
Given the legal questions and potential labor implications, Councilor Bacon moved to table the items for more thorough review and alignment with existing ordinances and state law. The motion to table carried on voice vote. Committee members asked staff and the solicitor to return with clearer, plain-language drafts and formal legal guidance before the committee acts further.
