Share Email Print RSS

Showdown

Richmond City Council may have passed a budget Tuesday night, but it's not the one that Chief Administrative Officer William E. Harrell intends to certify on July 1.

"Based on our position, the budget that I will certify is our budget, the Mayor's budget," Harrell said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

At issue is whether the Council's action Tuesday night is legal. Mayor L. Douglas Wilder holds that it is not, arguing that under the city charter a budget may only be passed at a regular meeting of Council. Tuesday night's meeting was a special session, called a week in advance after Council postponed their regularly scheduled budget vote on May 23.

But members of Council, along with City Attorney Norman Sales maintain that the Council's action Tuesday night is perfectly legal, pointing out that the city charter gives Council until May 31 to pass an annual budget. Second District Councilman William J. Pantele said to read the charter the way Wilder has is to defeat its stated deadline of May 31. "If the General Assembly wanted to limit the Council to regularly scheduled meetings, it could have easily said so," Pantele said.

Under the charter, in the event that Council does not pass a budget by May 31 however, the Mayor's proposed budget becomes law on July 1, which is what Wilder holds to now be the case.

"Today it is clear to me that the only legitimate budget that may be legally implemented is that which I submitted to City Council," said Wilder in a statement released Wednesday by the Mayor's Office.

In formulating his interpretation of the charter, Wilder said he spoke with former city attorneys, former judges, and current lawyers, all of whom apparently agreed that Council may only pass a budget at a regularly scheduled meeting.

"The burden isn't on us, but on the person who says [Council's budget] is legal," said Wilder in a loosely veiled jab at Sales. "It's a muddled situation as to who the city attorney represents."

Wilder said that a meeting between him and Vice-Mayor and 1st District councilman Manoli Loupassi could be imminent. Wilder said that he will instruct Council to let him know what amendments it would like to see him put into the budget that he proposed. Said Wilder, "Let's talk about what we can work out so that when July 1 does come, I can send them on down."

In terms of spending, there is only a two percent difference between Wilder's budget and the one Council passed Tuesday.

Loupassi said he does intend to meet with Wilder, but seemed to think that settling the issue in court is a possibility. "We're going to get an attorney and see what they say," said Loupassi, who noted that Sales cannot advise Council on its possible legal action against the Mayor because of a conflict of interest.

Any suit filed by Council would more than likely be heard in a Circuit Court in the City of Richmond. As for the procedure of going to court, "We'll file a declaratory judgment and get a ruling," said Loupassi, who has clearly grown weary of the budget process and Wilder's proclivity for releasing statements to the press. "We're not that far apart. But the thing is, if you govern by press release, it's hard to get anything done, and I think he's taken a pretty hard position that will make things difficult."

Assistant Vice-Mayor and 8th District councilwoman Jackie M. Jackson seems to be on board with Loupassi about going to court. Asked to comment on Harrell's statement that he will certify the Mayor's budget, Jackson wrote in an email, "see ya in court!"

Jackson continued later in the day, writing, "I believe our next steps will be court. The mayor can not disregard the law. He is not demonstrating any desire to work with us. The laws says Council "legislates" and administration "implements". This is getting very frustrating and it must stop."

Wilder warned Council against taking legal action on Wednesday, saying, "It would be a waste of time and tax dollars for anyone else to attempt to use the courts to block what the charter so plainly authorizes this administration to do."

It's anyone's guess as to how a potential court battle between Council and Wilder would turn out, but there are those who see Wilder with the upper hand simply because of the language of the charter.

"My gut tells me that the clear language of the law should dictate," Richmond City Commonwealth's Attorney David Hicks told Richmond.com Wednesday afternoon. "The charter says regular meeting. To me, that means regular meeting, with the May 31 date serving only as a calendar protection depending on the day of the week it falls."

Hicks questions the Council's decision to rely solely on the opinion of the City Attorney in its decision to pass its budget on Tuesday.

"The recent history of the City Attorney Office makes it apparent that the City Attorney would tell Council whatever it wants to hear," said Hicks, referencing a few recent gaffes by the City Attorney's Office, including telling Council it could authorize a large sports equipment store to sell guns despite a city ordinance prohibiting the sale of firearms, as well as advising Council that it could deliberate with outgoing City Manager Calvin Jamison behind closed doors, a move which produced a lawsuit from the Richmond Times Dispatch which the paper won.

Hicks said that he thinks Council was foolish not to have voted on the budget on May 23, and that when Wilder invoked the charter last week, "It was like watching a major league veteran pull a good move on a minor league rookie."

So, does Hicks think this was Wilder's plan all along? To bait Council into making a rash move with his reprimanding letter two weeks ago, thus ensuring that his budget would be the one certified?

"If it was, it was a masterful move, one that you should anticipate if you're a student of Doug Wilder."