The average Baltimore resident may have only a vague idea how the Board of Estimates works, but you can bet that every senior city official does. In a nutshell, the five-member board has a big say over city spending — from preparing the annual budget to overseeing contracts and even getting the final say on the sale of city-owned property. The panel has been around for a century and a quarter, and it seems, so has the debate over the board’s composition and duties. The latest discussion is spurred by a proposal to reduce the board’s membership to three people, by removing the mayor’s two appointees (and thus giving up mayoral control) and leaving behind the mayor, the City Council president and the city comptroller.
Yet, Baltimore being Baltimore, the latest plan comes with all sorts of political intrigue. First, it was introduced by Council President Nick Mosby who recently lost reelection in the Democratic primary (and offered the charter amendment only after his loss). Second, it’s strongly opposed by Mayor Brandon Scott, who previously favored a similar approach when he was City Council president. He sees this and other proposed charter amendments as part of an effort to “reduce Black political power” — though he may be referring more to separate proposals to shrink the size of the council and to reduce the property tax rate in that regard. Throw in Comptroller Bill Henry who has openly sought more authority over matters of city finance, and it’s not hard to see the competing motivations.
Who can blame a mayor for wanting greater control over the budget? Or a comptroller or council member (let alone council president) for wanting the same? In Baltimore, the argument has long been that a strong mayoral system is most likely to get things done in a timely and effective manner. Think of William Donald Schaefer and his “Do it now” mantra. But there’s also something to be said for checks and balances and maintaining a roadblock against potential corruption. The Board of Estimates (even with its mayoral appointees) has long provided an opportunity for financial decisions to be challenged. You think a vendor is failing or capital project is unworthy? Board members had a forum for raising objections.
Yet with the election just months away — where voters may be called upon to make a choice on the BOE downsizing (assuming it wins approval from both the City Council and Mayor Scott or is petitioned to the ballot) — there really isn’t time to have a broader, less political and more thorough and rational conversation about the governance of city finances. Had this proposal been the product of an independent commission, perhaps, or a long-term study that looked at how peer cities manage this area and the public been sufficiently engaged on the matter, then the table would be set. But this isn’t that. At best, it’s haphazard, and at worst, it’s the triumph of self-interest over reason.
None of this is to suggest that Baltimore city government is so expertly managed now that no new ideas are required. But today, the existing Board of Estimates and its weekly meetings have proven to play a vital role in at least providing a measure of transparency in city government, especially over financial matters. What would be disastrous is if the board instead of a funnel for information became a chokepoint for financial management and important programs were held up or canceled outright by future council presidents or comptrollers teaming up to thwart a mayor they regarded as a political rival and not a partner in governance.
Given that risk, it’s better for the City Council to set this reform aside — at least for now. Better to appoint some blue-ribbon task force (University of Baltimore President Kurt L. Schmoke, please check your calendar) to recommend action with sufficient public input and thoughtful expert review. Better to be safe than sorry when the stakes are this high. Once a charter amendment makes the ballot, it’s almost always approved by voters — for better or worse.
Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.