New Haven Independent

The proposal came before the Board of Aldermen’s Finance Committee at a City Hall meeting Wednesday night. Members vowed to press for a Blue Ribbon Budget Review Panel that truly represents citizens, not the mayor’s office.

After a public hearing followed by deliberation, committee members decided to recommend to the full board the creation of an 11-person panel, comprised of seven citizens, two aldermen, the budget director and the controller. Critically, the citizen members of the panel would be appointed by the president of the Board of Aldermen, in consultation with the board’s leadership, rather than by the mayor.

That’s a change from the original proposal, which drew criticism for its over-reliance on people tied to the administration. (Read about that in this story by the Register’s Maria Garriga.)

The panel, proposed by the board’s Black and Hispanic Caucus in January, would review the city’s budget and financial procedures and make recommendations to the Finance Committee. Alderman Jorge Perez (at left in photo), chairman of that caucus, testified Wednesday night on its behalf and voiced his own personal support for the proposal.

The caucus did not come up with the idea independently, Perez said, but rather built on suggestions from organizations like the New Haven Citizens’ Action Network that have long lobbied for citizen budget review.

Perez also explained that the caucus did not discuss the make-up of the panel. He said he personally believes it is important to include at least one alderman on the panel as a go-between, as well as the budget director, who would have unique insight into the reasoning behind budget decisions.

Perez said that although he’s been accused being a “tool of the administration” in his attempts to get the panel off the ground, the goal is ultimately to give citizens the opportunity to provide feedback on the budget process.

A Panel, Not a Commission

West River Alderman Yusuf Ibn Shah (pictured), chairman of the Finance Committee, emphasized the importance of making the proposed panel accountable to the Board of Aldermen, rather than the mayor’s office, and of limiting mayoral appointments to the panel to the Budget Director and Controller. That way, he said, “the perception of puppetry by the administration goes in the waste basket.”

“We as a board have had difficultly shaking that perception,” he said. “I think we’re ready to move forward and say we’re ready to do something devoid of that influence and conflict.”

City commissions are appointed by the mayor and accountable to the mayor, but this proposal is for a study panel, not a commission.”If we’re going to have autonomy on this, it needs to be in the realm of a panel,” said Shah. “I’m glad the Black and Hispanic Caucus in their wisdom brought it up as a panel and not a commission.”

During his testimony, Perez said he couldn’t say for sure that the panel could be kept clear of mayoral control, but that he supports Shah’s approach if the chair’s assessment of the meaning of a panel is correct. “If we can do it, I think we should do it,” Perez said.

Shah’s sentiments were echoed by Gary Doyens and Ken Joyner, both of the New Haven Citizens’ Action Network, and resident Rebecca Turcio (pictured, left to right), who all offered public testimony at the hearing. “It needs to be independent, otherwise it’s totally useless,” said Turcio.

Doyens also emphasized the need for independence, and recommended that citizens appointed to the panel have some expertise in budget matters.

Joyner, like Perez in his testimony, rebutted the notion that the panel would duplicate the work of existing boards and commissions. He said such existing entities are largely non-functional, most notably the Finance, Revenue, and Audit Commission, which is supposed to meet monthly and report to the Finance Committee but has not done so since its creation. FRAC tried to hold a meeting Wednesday, but adjourned due to lack of a quorum.

Bringing it to the Floor

During deliberations after the public hearing, committee members discussed how the proposal should look when it hits the floor of the Board of Aldermen in August. Shah brought copies of an amended framework he had drawn up, and the members agreed on making some additional changes to this proposal before it comes before the board.

They agreed that two aldermen, rather than the proposed three, should sit on the panel — one from the majority and one from the minority delegation — and that these aldermen should not come from the Finance Committee.

The original proposal slated the chair of the Finance Committee to serve on the Blue Ribbon Panel, but Shah said this would hamper the panel’s independence. “I don’t want to be on it for the same reasons we don’t want the mayor to select everyone,” he said. And both he and Alderwoman Migdalia Castro said it is important to involve other members of the board, outside the Finance Committee, who have a strong interest in the budget process.

Members agreed to adjust the proposed timeline for the panel’s reports to the Finance Committee. Originally, the caucus had suggested only a November report, but aldermen and members of the public expressed concern that this was too short an operating period for a panel that wouldn’t even begin its work until September.

“The idea was to get some input before the budget was finalized by the administration, and definitely before we got to it, even if it’s preliminary,” Perez said of the original choice of November as a benchmark. Perez and his colleagues agreed to propose that the panel report back in February, before the Finance Committee receives the mayor’s budget.

Opinions varied on whether to recommend a sunset clause to provide a set end to the panel’s responsibilities. Beaver Hills Alderman Mordechai Sandman advocated giving the board the freedom to discontinue the panel, especially in light of a recommendation by Doyens that the panel have an operating budget on the order of five to ten-thousand dollars.

“If we don’t find it useful or relevant, we shouldn’t be obligated to keep it going,” Sandman said. “Let’s make sure we don’t commit ourselves to something we may not want around six months from now.”

Shah countered that citizen involvement and oversight is an important end in itself. “That’s like saying ‘OK, we’ll sunset it before it can even get up to speed,’” he said. “We want citizens to get the sense that they’re really part of the process and their input’s really taken seriously. If we’re going to do this, we should give the panel life.”

The committee decided that the panel should start in September and sunset on June 30, when the budget process concludes, unless extended by the Board of Aldermen on the panel’s recommendation. The panel would give aldermen periodic reports along the way.