The San Diego City Council struggled once again today with the question of how much the mayor can change the budget after the council approves it. Two competing proposals were discussed, but the power struggle at city hall appears to have dissolved into a decision to continue with the status quo. KPBS reporter Alison St John has more.
One proposal by Councilwoman Donna Frye would require the mayor to get council approval before cutting programs. The other proposal by Council President Scott Peters would allow the mayor to cut $4 million -- or 10% of any program -- without council approval.
City Attorney Mike Aguirre issued a legal opinion that neither proposal is legal, prompting the council to refer the whole matter back to committee for discussion.
However, dozens of people testified for and against the measures.
Frye brought in constitutional legal professor Bryan Wildenthal to explain that Peter’s proposal would go further than the federal constitution in sharing power.
Wildenthal : The other ordinance would grant the mayor considerably more authority -- authority the president doesn’t have at the federal level to unilaterally cut finding even eliminate programs, policies and services funded by the council.
Wildenthal added that the San Diego city charter specifically prohibits the council from giving up it authority to the executive branch. But many business leaders, like Mike Watts of Gen Probe says Frye’s proposal would be micromanaging the mayor who was elected to make change.
Wildenthal : The original budgetary authority ordinance asks the mayor to ask the city council for permission to save money, such as policy would never fly in business and it's no way to deal with city business.
City Attorney Mike Aguirre’s legal opinion is that “there is no bright line to draw that determines exactly where the Mayor’s and the Council’s authority begins and ends.” He is recommending a new committee, including his office, to help resolve budget disputes throughout the year.
Alison St John, KPBS News.