Amending a budget is a common practice
Re: “Power parity lacking in city,” June 20 news story.
This article is technically accurate, but not enlightening. One troublesome sentence: “It takes a two-thirds majority of the council to force (emphasis mine) amendments to the annual budget, although Hancock typically has accepted some revisions requested by the council and has incorporated its annual budget priorities.”
For more than 100 years, Denver’s constitution required a super-majority (nine votes out of 13) to amend the city budget. No override provision was necessary. Budgets were seldom amended, except for non-controversial items.
In March 1991, the voters of Denver approved a charter change that normalized this unique system. American laws are passed with a simple majority; vetoes require a super-majority. Only once since March 1991 has any controversial amendment to our city budget been presented.
Carol Boigon sponsored such an amendment during the Webb administration. She secured 10 votes for her wish to add personnel to the police deptartment. The word “veto” was not uttered by the mayor’s office. Since only one such amendment has been presented during the past 20 years, council members have ignored their new power. They must have thought Mayors John Hickenlooper and Michael Hancock were flawless city managers — an amazing fact, if it were true.
Amending a government budget is a very common practice. The word “force,” as used in this article, reads like an editorial comment rather than a news item. There is not much “forcing” going on if only one controversial amendment pops up in more than 20 years.
I hope the new council members understand the power that had been given to them in 1991, and that they use it wisely.