Mayor mulling budget veto
By Jeff Gallatin
North Olmsted
Published March 21, 2007

Mayor Thomas O’Grady may be delivering the same return to sender message to city council about this year’s proposed budget that he did last year.

After seeing the final budget plan recommended by council’s finance committee, O’Grady said he would veto all or part of the budget. Last year, O’Grady also rejected portions of the budget after council inserted another correctional officer into it which he did not seek.

“It depends on what they do in the final vote,” O’Grady said. “I may veto all or part of the budget as it currently stands.”

The full council was scheduled to meet last night.

O’Grady’s comments came after the finance committee held a contentious final budget session March 14 which contained a proposal by Ward 1 Councilman Dan Ryan which slashed budgets for several departments. It received no seconds from fellow committee members. However, moves by committee chairman Ron Tallon to limit salary raises for all non-bargaining unit city employees, including the mayor and department heads’ secretaries, to one percent passed. He also proposed moving $60,000 in the street maintenance fund. Another move to cut more than $20,000 from the service department which would likely stop purchase of a new vehicle for the service director ended up passing. Council also discussed cutting the mayor’s travel budget and membership in different regional or national government organizations. Councilman-at-large Paul Miller initially recommended cutting membership and travel funds for all groups which had not already been paid for, which prompted sharp exchanges between the mayor and Miller about the action. The group eventually ended up recommending giving $1,000 to the fund instead of $4,000.

Upon hearing of O’Grady’s possible veto action, council members said they took what they felt was the best possible action.

“If he wants to bring city government to a standstill by vetoing the budget, that’s up to him,” Tallon said. “We took actions which we think were the best course of action in a tight budget year.”

O’Grady said he thinks the council members were unfairly singling out the non-bargaining unit employees, the government organizations and travel.

“They (non-bargaining unit employees) aren’t given the same protections as the union employees and they don’t have the same step increases in their pay scales as the union employees,” O’Grady said. “As for the moves on the government groups and travel, some members of council are engaged in the same practices of deciding something on their own and acting in secret. I’m representing the city doing this and that shouldn’t be singled out.”

Council members said they were exercising proper review and said they have discussed similar moves throughout the budget process.

“It’s a tight year and we’re looking for any way to find extra room in the budget, since we’ve only got about $13,000 extra in the budget as proposed by the administration,” Tallon said. “We’re trying to hold all the employees to the one percent increase.”

All the city department heads signed a letter opposing the limiting of the non-bargaining unit workers pay increase, with Safety Director Tom Terbrack also speaking out individually, saying the move is hurting employee morale and appears discriminatory in nature by singling out those workers.

Miller said the service department cut and the cutting of government and travel funds are not as severe as the mayor says they are.

“We’re getting several used vehicles from the police department which should be sufficient for travel around town,”  he said. “We also looked at all the government funds and travel and came up with a figure which we felt was fair. We also left open the possibility of reviewing it in November when the payment is due and seeing where we are financially. If we’re in a position to pay, then we can do it.”

O’Grady contended Miller did not realize that his actions could hurt the city, saying if Northern Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency funds had been cut, the city would not be eligible for Crocker-Stearns project assistance and other funds. Miller disputed this, saying all the proposals were discussed before a good final proposal was approved.

Councilman-at-large Michael Gareau Jr., who had indicated prior to the special session that he likely would not be in attendance since the meeting was called during the last regularly scheduled budget meeting, said O’Grady’s final move will affect how he votes.

“If he vetoes the entire budget, it’s likely I would vote to override the veto,” Gareau said. “I can’t support bringing the entire city to a standstill if he vetoes the whole thing. The possible changes proposed by council aren’t worth stopping everything. If the mayor only does part of it, I’d have to consider what those are before voting.”

Committee members called the special session after Ryan requested it, saying he wanted time to consider the final budget before voting. He then brought his plan with the proposed cuts to the March 14 session. He only brought copies for himself, Tallon, Miller (the finance committee) and Ward 4 Councilman Larry Orlowski, who frequently votes on the same side with them. That move prompted a protest from the administration and a request to Ryan both during and after the meeting for a copy, which he, at least initially, said no to.

“That’s just not good government, “ O’Grady said. “He needs to be responsive to everybody.”

Ryan said he was explaining the move to the committee, which he also cited when declining a request by non-committee member Ward 2 Councilman Paul Barker to ask questions.

“I’ve got serious worries about the budget and where we’re going financially,” Ryan said later. “We’ve got to stop the unneeded spending.”

Barker said later he was unhappy with being shut out.

“I’m very disappointed in the action,” Barker said. “I’d expect better from my fellow council members. Even if we disagree we usually let each other speak. We’re supposed to be a non-partisan group and I think that normally is the case, but this is the first time I’ve had to wonder. I’m not happy that Ryan didn’t want me to speak and that others didn’t speak up about it.”

Miller was apologetic when asked the situation.

“It was not our best moment,” Miller said. “I had a lot of things going through my head with Dan’s proposals on the floor and discussion of other ideas. With hindsight, I certainly should have said at the time that Paul should be allowed to speak. I’ve spoken to Councilman Barker since then and told him as much.”

Tallon said he did bring Barker and Council President Kevin Kennedy into the discussion.

“That’s why I asked them at the end if they had questions; they’re certainly a part of this,” Tallon said. “As for Dan’s overall plan, there are good ideas and he’s right, we need to watch our money, but right now the plans are just a little too much.”