Budget ends don't justify council's means

Thursday, November 1, 2012
Text Size: A | A

The process Schenectady City Council Democrats followed in making last-minute budget changes sure was ugly, and the results might eventually prove to be, as well. But at least Schenectady taxpayers will catch a break in the meantime, seeing their taxes go up only 1.7 percent next year instead of the 4.2 percent Mayor Gary McCarthy had proposed and the council had seemed prepared to go along with until this week.

There are, of course, a number of questions about how the council reached its final numbers — most pertaining to the private caucus Democrats convened Monday night at the time originally scheduled for a budget vote; evicting the media as well as the council’s only non-Democrat, Vince Riggi, to “discuss,” among other things, eliminating Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett’s job without actually “considering” it, as Councilman Carl Erikson later characterized what took place.

Getting rid of Bennett, who has done a fairly good job restoring respectability to the long-scandalized department and who only last week won the legal right to enact an internal discipline policy that should make it even better, would have been a big mistake. For one thing, the city has to have a public safety commissioner (under state law) in order to impose such a policy, which the city spent a bundle and fought years in court for.

Certainly, Bennett’s $124,000 salary would be worth that much alone, but he will presumably be able to continue running the department as a chief would. Thus hiring a new chief when Mark Chaires retires later this month would not be necessary. Unfortunately, McCarthy seems committed to the redundancy, but his requirement that the new chief live in the city has created a stalemate among three nonresident candidates who passed the civil service test for the job: All live elsewhere and none wants to move.

Under certain circumstances an executive session might have been justified to discuss a personnel matter, but not one excluding Riggi. Moreover, the council had publicly discussed specific layoffs, including employees’ names, earlier in the budget season.

Riggi and other members of the public, including the media, also should have been welcome to any general (e.g. non-personnel) budget discussions. That’s not only according to law, but is the council’s tradition.

As for the last-minute budget cuts the council adopted Tuesday, only time will tell whether they were legitimate, or a desperate charade that will render the city unable to uphold realistic levels of service or create big deficits. It sure sounds as if McCarthy and Finance Commissioner Ismat Alam had artificially inflated some projected spending, perhaps to rebuild the cushion that’s been wiped out in recent years. Under the circumstances, that course might have been defensible, but also should have been discussed — publicly — by all council members, not just the Democrats.

Share story: print print email email facebook facebook reddit reddit


November 1, 2012
10:09 a.m.
cfield says...

Interesting how the Gazette and others credit the Commissioner with all the reforms at the Department, implying that the rest of the Command Staff had nothing to do with them.

Also, on repeated occasions the Gazette has intimated the Chief, in particular, did nothing. For example, re: the disciplining of numerous officers -Kathleen Moore wrote "it is unclear what role the Chief played..." Why not do some actual reporting and find out?

And, this was followed up by the Editorial Board not giving any credit to the Chief or his Command Staff but in a left handed compliment asserted "Well, at least he (Chief) did not stand in their (Bennett and Stratton's) way."

Wonder why the Gazette has taken this approach?

November 1, 2012
5:09 p.m.
tonijean613 says...

They really excluded a fellow council member from a council meeting? oh my..
And what's up with 3 police candidates for assistant chief not wanting to live in the city they police and serve? Why are they allowed to live outside the city anyway? That's simply wrong. Why is an assistant chief even needed? Which is probably the point of City Council doing the right thing and cutting that asst chief position out of budget.

November 1, 2012
6:59 p.m.
wmarincic says...

Well Niskayuna, Glenville and Scotia is basically Schenectady and after five years of living in the city you can move outside the city as a police officer or firefighter. The asst. Chiefs are needed because they discontinued the Captain positions but they should discontinue the Asst. Chiefs also since the Lt's. and Sgt's. basically run the departments anyway. SPD is top heavy and they need to get rid of all of the Chiefs and get some more officers.

November 2, 2012
10:44 a.m.
cfield says...

First, there is a difference between middle management and upper level management.

Second, the sergeants and lieutenants are bargaining unit members - you do not run a public sector agency with all its' managers and workers in the same union. that's commen sense.

November 8, 2012
6:30 a.m.

Agreed cfeld....that is common sense for anti corruption and fairness...but that is not what we have in Schenectady...

November 8, 2012
9:35 a.m.
cfield says...


The City Council alleged they cut the position partly out of misguided notion that it was not needed and too expensive.

SFD actually has more supervisors and their budget increased.

Mayor won't promote any of the ACs because they don't live in the City, yet, he promoted DellaRocco to Chief who does not live ion the City.

Wonder why Gazette does not ask these questions?

Log-in to post a comment.

columnists & blogs

Log into

Forgot Password?