SCHENECTADY — A proposed charter change in Schenectady, initiated by Mayor Gary McCarthy to streamline the city’s budget timeline, has been halted. Instead, the City Council has decided to consider the formation of a commission to scrutinize the entire charter.
The City Council was up against a Sept. 5 deadline to approve McCarthy’s charter proposal, which would then be presented to taxpayers for a November referendum vote.
However, with the deadline looming, Council President Marion Porterfield expressed her opposition to McCarthy’s charter proposal during Monday’s Government Operations Committee meeting. She did not anticipate it being greenlit for the November ballot.
Porterfield voiced her support for a more thorough examination of the entire charter, an idea initially proposed by Councilman John Mootooveren at the council’s July 15 meeting.
As per the existing city charter, the mayor is obligated to present a proposed operating budget to the council each year on or before Oct. 1. The council, in turn, is required to adopt a budget by Nov. 1.
The charter, however, does not specify the repercussions if the council fails to approve a budget by the deadline. The previous year’s budget process extended until Dec. 21, when the council finally approved a third and final budget proposal following two mayoral vetoes.
In the wake of last year’s drawn-out process, both the council and mayor expressed their support for a charter amendment that would eliminate any confusion regarding the budget timeline.
“Last year’s budget process was a fiasco,” McCarthy stated on Monday. “Upon the budget’s approval, everyone agreed to propose a legislative solution requiring a charter change. It’s the City Council’s responsibility to do that.”
The issue remained unaddressed for the first half of the year. McCarthy submitted his proposal on July 1, but the council was divided over the proposed charter change.
Before Monday’s meeting, McCarthy criticized the council for not presenting a charter proposal in time for voters to have their say this November.
“As the year progressed, no action was taken on it and I brought it up to initiate the process, given the strict timelines to get it on the ballot for the voters,” he said. “The council, who had done nothing, resisted. There were no substantial alternatives proposed, it was all talk about, ‘We could do this or that.’ But nobody put anything in writing as to the scenario that I put forth.”
Porterfield argued on Monday that discussions on the proposed amendment change should have commenced earlier.
“Ideally, it should have been brought forward early in the year, right after we concluded the last budget season,” she said after Monday’s meeting. “That didn’t happen. I’m not blaming anyone for that. Both the mayor and the council could have brought it forward. It would have been ideal if we had discussed it since that was an agreement we had during the budget season. But that did not happen. We are where we are and we have to deal with the circumstances as they are.”
McCarthy’s proposal suggested that if the council does not pass a budget by Nov. 1, then the mayor’s original proposed budget would automatically be adopted. According to McCarthy’s proposal, if the council were to pass a budget by Nov. 1 in a given year that amends the mayor’s original budget, the mayor would have until Nov. 10 to issue a veto or the council’s budget would stand. The council would then have until Nov. 20 to override the mayor’s veto with a five-vote supermajority or the mayor’s budget would be adopted.
McCarthy’s proposal would not have impacted the upcoming 2025 budget process, which will take place this fall.
If McCarthy’s proposal to amend the city charter had been put forth to voters on the Nov. 5 general election ballot, and voters voted in approval, the amendment would have taken effect in time for the 2026 budget negotiations.
Councilwoman Carmel Patrick suggested during Monday’s meeting that the council could consider McCarthy’s proposal before embarking on a comprehensive review of the entire charter. However, her proposal did not gain traction.
Porterfield provided state guidelines for charter revisions to the council during Monday’s meeting, with the council set to consider its options. This could lead to the council establishing a charter committee by a local law or sending a referendum to voters to decide if a charter commission should be formed.
“It’s just a diversionary tactic to distract from their failure to fulfill a commitment made last year by the council leadership,” McCarthy said of the council’s consideration of a charter commission.
The state guidelines indicate that a mayor may form a charter commission by appointing between nine to 15 residents to serve as committee members.
–
Disagree – The council should seriously consider McCarthy’s charter proposal instead of dismissing it. It could bring about positive changes for the community.
I disagree with the council’s decision to dismiss McCarthy’s charter proposal. It could potentially benefit the community and should be seriously considered.
Disagree with the dismissal of McCarthy’s charter proposal. It deserves proper consideration for potential community benefits.