Cassilly vetoes bill expanding Harford Council’s budgetary power

Harford County Executive Bob Cassilly has vetoed legislation that would have expanded the budgetary power of the County Council — granting council members the ability to reallocate funds to any part of the county budget as long as they have approval from five of the council’s seven members.

The bill was introduced by District A Councilman Aaron Penman in May and was approved by the council by a 4-3 vote in late June. The vote meant the bill, which would amend the county charter, could appear as a referendum question on the November ballot.

In a news release issued Tuesday, Cassilly cited higher taxes, the influence of special interests and unsustainable spending as the reasons for the veto.

Cassilly stated that should the charter amendment be passed, it would lead to special interest groups lobbying council members to increase spending. That, he argued, would lead to uncontrolled spending and create a need for   tax increases.

“Average voters do not have lobbyists to protect them against runaway spending and tax increases,” Cassilly said.

Cassilly noted that for the first time in county history, the council has two members — Penman and Jacob Bennett — who are employed by entities funded by the county budget.

He stated that both Penman and Bennett “routinely advocate and vote for increased funding for their employers” with Penman advocating for the sheriff’s department and Bennett advocating for the public school system.

“Once their employers have more power to determine the budget — which is the true objective of this legislation — these outside entities will act to ensure all future councils have more of these lobbyists,” Cassilly said.

In the news release, Cassilly stated that he is a full-time professional who works the entire year on the budget. He drew a contrast between himself and council members, who he referred to as “part-time legislators” who review and approve the budget in one month.

“They cannot effectively balance county resources with the entire range of critical funding demands,” Cassilly said. “This shows the wisdom of our county charter, which currently limits the council’s role to budget oversight and not budget design.”

Cassilly has been a critic of Penman’s bill since its introduction, stating in May that it is a “back-door attempt” to increase government spending on the backs of taxpayers.

Penman said the legislation was necessary because it would not only instill what he called “checks and balances,” but would encourage conversation and collaboration between the County Council and county executive — something many officials said was absent during this year’s budget progress.

“I believe what this would do is improve things to where we would have a conversation with the county executive,” Penman said when he introduced his bill. “This is all about compromise and progress, because that is democracy.”

Council members Dion Guthrie, Tony Giangiordano and James Reilly voted against the amendment, citing concerns similar to Cassilly’s regarding tax increases and the influence of special interests.

“We all have special interests in our districts and that’s the problem with this, because say I want to fund something going on in my area and someone wants to spend money on their district — all of a sudden you have special interests running the budget,” Reilly said during a public hearing on the bill.

Council President Patrick Vincenti called the council’s position on the bill “awkward.” Approving the bill doesn’t necessarily mean members support in, he explained, only that they want the public to have the opportunity to vote on it.

“This is not a vote to support the bill. It is a vote to move the bill to the citizens we are hearing from,” Vincenti said before voting on the bill in June. “If they decide to move this then that is their vote because we are giving them an opportunity to be heard.”

Penman said he is disappointed in the veto and that Cassilly’s news release was insulting to both the council and county residents.

“I think it is all around disrespectful to our council, our community, our constituents and our democracy,” Penman said. “He single-handedly took the decision away from the people.”

The council will require five votes to override the veto. Penman said he would like to move forward with an override but is not sure he can secure enough votes.