A lack of participation
Council absences weigh down participatory budgeting vote, which fails
A move to expand and pay the future “participatory budgeting” board failed as the combined effect of opposition from the city council’s more conservative bloc and absences from councilors who may have voted for it took the matter down.
The reality is that the referendum-driven effort to set aside a portion of the city budget for direct-vote “participatory budgeting” will come into existence by the end of the week no matter what — but it will be the version as originally proposed by the mayor that took some flak from activists.
City residents approved a ballot question in 2021 to start this process, which now will be built out for future use amid the rough framework laid out by the city. But now, through an odd twist of dueling cityrules esoterica, in these opening stages it will be governed by a board of nine unpaid members, as Mayor Michelle Wu proposed, and not the 11 paid people that the councilors had up for a vote.
As City Councilor Michael Flaherty, one of the “nay” votes, put it, participatory budgeting is happening; it’s just “how do you like your eggs — over easy or over medium.”
The measure only gained six votes yesterday, rather than the seven it needed. The more conservative bloc of City Council President Ed Flynn and Councilors Frank Baker, Flaherty, and Erin Murphy all voted no, and City Councilors Gigi Coletta, Julia Mejia — one of the main negotiators around this issue — and Brian Worrell were all absent.
Per their absence letters filed with the clerk, Coletta had a “previous commitment,” Mejia was down in Washington for a “Dominicans on the Hill” conference and Worrell, a new father, had “familial commitments.”
The council had to vote in its weekly meeting because the mayor had filed her version as a “60-day order,” meaning that if the council doesn’t act on it within 60 days, it just goes into effect as is.
As Council Government Operations Chair Ricardo Arroyo noted, the administration filed it right before the council’s monthlong recess around the holidays — and then by this Friday, council either had to pass it or vote to reject it, or the mayor’s version goes into effect. Arroyo, in his position as chair, brought to the floor what he characterized as a “compromise” version, seeking to expand the board from the mayor’s proposed nine to 11, after some councilors and advocates sought 18 or more originally.
The mayor’s version has the board members unpaid, though able to get their associated expenses covered. Some of the councilors wanted to pay the members $1,000 a month plus expenses, though the ultimate version Arroyo brought to the floor had them getting paid “as determined by the mayor commensurate with their duties.”
Arroyo said it seems “unjust” to ask this board to take on a heavy workload of shaping this process and doing an unusual amount of outreach without paying them. After the roll-call vote shook out, the clerk read into the record that the motion to amend and pass had failed, and that the matter would remain in committee — meaning the mayor’s version is set to go into effect. For now, at least. The council can propose new ordinance changes in the future.