- D.C. Council’s Killing of Mayor’s Plan Is a Sign of Tension Between Government Branches
- Council Says No to $60 Million-Plus in Gray Proposals
- Late-Arriving D.C. Budget Proposals Increase Friction Between Mayor, Council
The Washington Post
By Tim Craig
April 17, 2012
Amid increasingly dour relations between Mayor Vincent C. Gray and D.C. Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown, a unified council on Tuesday rejected Gray’s plan to spend a $79 million budget surplus.
With the District flush with cash after higher-than-expected revenue this fiscal year, Gray (D) has proposed using the funds to close midyear budget gaps in funding for schools, libraries, health care and economic development. He also has recommended repaying city employees a combined $20 million for four furlough days that they took last year to help close a projected budget gap.
But flexing his political muscle as he tries to position himself as a fiscal hawk, Brown (D) rallied all 12 council members to kill Gray’s proposals. Brown said it was irresponsible to authorize additional funding in what he said was the administration’s response to overspending by some agencies.
Instead, the council approved $15 million in new spending to close a shortfall in charter school funding and shore up the city’s Unemployment Compensation Fund. If Gray wants to spend more, he must submit another proposal for consideration, the council said.
“We pass a budget and the agency simply does not comply with it, and then it comes back to us asking for money?” Brown said before the vote. “Clearly, it’s the responsibility of agency management to resolve this kind of spending pressure internally.”
Brown’s effort comes after several weeks of tension between him and Gray, which has unnerved some council members.
After Brown and Gray were elected as political allies in 2010, they pledged to cooperate and put an end to the high-profile spats between the council and then-mayor Adrian M. Fenty.
But relations between the city’s two highest-profile elected officials have deteriorated as both men try to govern amid federal investigations into D.C. political campaigns.
Gray spokesman Pedro Ribeiro said in a statement after Tuesday’s council vote that the council was “unfortunately . . . just kicking the can down the road.”
“We will continue to work with the council to ensure that [spending] pressures are resolved in a responsible manner,” Ribeiro said.
Asked to comment on Ribeiro’s statement, Brown said he had no response because Ribeiro was “clueless.”
“I don’t respond to the mayor’s spokesperson, because I think he’s clueless on some things that came out of his mouth,” Brown said.
Brown added that he will respond only to comments by the mayor, even though Ribeiro speaks for Gray. “If the mayor says some things, I will respond,” Brown said. “But I’m not going to respond to a communications director who said things that are not as factual as they should be.”
Ribeiro would only say: “We don’t engage in that kind of name-calling.”
Last week, a Washington Examiner story quoted an unidentified senior Gray administration official as calling Brown “a do-nothing chairman.”
Despite Brown’s insistence that he will respond only to the mayor, government officials said Gray has struggled in recent weeks to get Brown on the phone.
Gray called Brown “a couple” times last week but the two men were only able to exchange voice mails, staffers said. Both men agreed Tuesday evening to meet on Thursday.
Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) said he is concerned the the rift between Gray and Brown may be expanding.
“People want to see this government function well and expect the [mayor and council to work] collaboratively,” he said. “If there is tension between either the mayor or the chairman, whoever is at fault, it needs to be fixed.”
Part of the friction between the two appears to stem from a power play over who should take the lead in shaping city spending plans.
On Tuesday morning, Brown said he was going to pass emergency legislation requiring that the mayor get council approval before reallocating any money in the capital budget. Under current laws, the mayor must get council approval only when the administration seeks to spend more than $500,000.
Gray said he “strongly opposed” Brown’s bill, saying it could cripple ongoing construction projects. Brown withdrew his proposal before it came up for a vote.
But Brown isn’t the only member questioning Gray’s oversight of the budget. Several members said they were concerned that Gray appears so willing to spend the city’s surplus instead of looking for savings in other agencies.
Council member Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4) said the plan approved by the council Tuesday is “careful, measured, responsible measure.”
And while the council rejected much of Gray’s proposal, Brown said he would reconsider the matter, including whether the city should repay employees for their missed days.
The Washington Examiner
By Alan Blinder
April 17, 2012
The D.C. Council defied Mayor Vincent Gray and rejected most of his $77 million supplemental budget package Tuesday.
Lawmakers unanimously voted to spend only $15 million immediately, boosting the District's charter schools and unemployment compensation fund. But the vote dashed -- for now -- about 80 percent of Gray's spending proposal, including a $20 million plan to pay District employees for four furlough days they were required to take last year.
Council Chairman Kwame Brown said the council didn't approve Gray's full request because legislators received the mayor's formal proposal minutes before lawmakers were to meet, which didn't give them enough time to review the package.
"The ball kept moving like three or four times," Brown said after the vote. "It was kind of very unclear."
Rejected
The D.C. Council slashed Mayor Vincent Gray's supplemental budget proposal from $77 million to $15 million before approving it Tuesday. Among the budget items legislators refused to back:
-- $25 million for D.C. Public Schools
-- $20 million for furlough repayments
-- $10 million for the Department of Health Care Finance
-- $400,000 for the D.C. Public Library
He said lawmakers will eventually take up Gray's full proposal.
Ward 1 Councilman Jim Graham said he thought Gray's pace was deliberate.
"He handled it the way he wanted to handle it," Graham said. "He sent the messages he wanted to send. I don't think he behaves casually with things like this."SClBIn a statement issued after the vote, a spokesman for Gray blamed Brown -- and no other legislators.
"We’re glad the chair heeded our advice and finally acted on some of the pressures. Unfortunately, he's just kicking the can down the road on other important sections of the supplemental," Pedro Ribeiro said. "We will continue working with the council."
Brown declined to respond to Ribeiro's statement, issued on Gray's behalf, and described the mayor's spokesman as "clueless."
Tuesday's vote was the latest episode in a contentious period in Gray's relationship with the body he once led. After the mayor submitted his first supplemental budget request in January, most lawmakers publicly rebuked him.
Brown then refused to schedule a vote on the proposal while legislators reviewed it further, which promoted a Gray administration official to label Brown "a do-nothing chairman." Ward 2 Councilman Jack Evans, the council's longest-serving member, said hostile periods between the mayor and legislators can hurt city business.
"Things deteriorate sometimes to a point where things don't always operate very well. That's always a concern," Evans said. "I want the relationship between the executive and legislative branches to be more positive than I've seen it in the last couple of weeks."
The Washington Times
By Tom Howell Jr.
April 17, 2012
D.C. Council members on Tuesday worried that friction with Mayor Vincent C. Gray is “escalating dramatically” because of contentious mid-year spending plans that are causing heartburn around city hall.
Lawmakers have sparred with Mr. Gray over his supplemental budget proposal, which is meant to tackle funding needs that arise during the fiscal year from unforeseen circumstances or agency overspending.
The city’s elected officials are divided over questions that include how to fund the city’s priorities without wasting money, whether furloughed city employees should be reimbursed and if it is wise to pass spending plans partway through the year.
Ultimately, the council agreed on Tuesday to act on two appropriations within Mr. Gray’s plan - $7 million for the D.C. Public Charter Schools and $8 million for the Unemployment Compensation Fund.
Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown said the items represented the most urgent needs, although the mayor’s spokesman, Pedro Ribeiro,argued the council was “kicking the can down the road” on other priorities.
Mr. Brown responded by saying Mr. Ribeiro was “clueless” on the issue, although moments later he told reporters he does not see the budget disagreements as part of a major rift with Mr. Gray. His spokeswoman later said the chairman “meant no harm” by his initial comment.
For now, the city’s supplemental budget for fiscal year 2012 leaves out a controversial initiative to reimburse city employees for unpaid furloughs they took last year, although some council members promised labor unions they would make it happen in light of higher-than-expected revenues at the end of last year.
Mr. Brown said the reimbursement could cost more than $25 million, prompting council member Jack Evans, Ward 2 Democrat, to say the price tag could “temper [his] interest in doing that.”
Mr. Brown said he wants to see an official proposal from the mayor that outlines how much money is available to repay city workers. Depending on the amount, the city might be able to form a package that repays city workers for two days, provides some tax relief for residents and funds affordable housing and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
But the most bizarre developments in the council’s daylong stab at the mayor’s budgetary wishes began over orange juice and Danish at the council’s breakfast - after city denizens stepped outside to watch the Space Shuttle Discovery fly overhead atop a 747.
Council Secretary Nyasha Smith said the mayor’s office had not officially transmitted a supplemental budget bill to the council, despite Mr. Gray’s position letter which indicates a plan was conveyed on March 29.
Mr. Brown said the council on that date only received a list of recommendations. He also insisted the council has been a responsible party in the talks by finding additional savings for the city and meeting with the mayor during the spring recess.
Mr. Ribeiro later contended the mayor sent a bill to the council in January and members were free to amend it as they please based on the mayor’s recommendation two months later.
But council members were taken aback when a member of the mayor’s staff walked into the breakfast with the mayor’s position letter clipped to a new version of the spending bill they had been discussing, mere moments before the legislators were supposed to take the dais and cast votes.
“I’ve never seen anything like it,” council member David A. Catania, at-large independent who has served on the body since the late 1990s, said of the late arrival.
More importantly, at least in a political sense, Mr. Evans asked his colleagues what kind of signal they want to send to the mayor’s team as they address the supplemental plan and simultaneously debate a bill that requires the mayor to report the reprogramming of capital funds, even in small amounts, to the council.
“We’re at a point where we’re about to go into a public conflict together,” said council member Tommy Wells, Ward 6 Democrat.
Mr. Evans jokingly referred to council members Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat, and Michael A. Brown, at-large Democrat, as Mr. Gray’s “friends,” insinuating they must know “what’s happening” in his mind.
Council member Marion Barry, Ward 8 Democrat, said he is a supporter of Mr. Gray, but he seems to be relying too much on his budget director.
“Rasputin did it!” Mr. Catania quipped.
Mr. Catania seemed fine with a little friction, noting “constructive tension” could benefit a mayor-council relationship that is “too cozy anyway.”
And council member Phil Mendelson, at-large Democrat, wondered why the body was prolonging discussion over supplemental budgets in general by acting on this one at all.
“I don’t know why this dead horse isn’t dead,” Mr. Mendelson said of the practice, in which new spending plans come forward partway through the year and which some council members have frowned upon. “Let’s move on.”
Potential friction with the mayor could have been exacerbated by emergency legislation put forth by Mr. Brown, which requires the mayor to notify council members of any capital budget reprogramming requests of less than $500,000 so they are aware of any funding they lose from projects in their wards.
The mayor’s position letter said the mayor “strongly opposed” the move because it could delay “the timely implementation of projects.”
Mr. Wells warned that the council was making an “offensive act” and it may be prudent to take a step back on the action.
Ultimately, Mr. Brown withdrew the proposal on the dais. He told reporters the bill could have passed, but it had been circulated recently and members needed more time to mull over its implications.
Mailing Archive: