Whenever elected officials don’t want to take responsibility for spending, they blame mandates. The city of Concord is using that excuse in its latest attempt to avoid a tax and spending cap.
In September, Secretary of State Bill Gardner and officials from the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Revenue Administration all agreed that the proposed city spending cap voters petitioned to get on the capital city’s ballot was constitutional. The city still managed to avoid putting it on the November ballot. Now City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh is challenging the constitutionality of the cap in court.
His reason? The cap could prevent the city from funding services mandated by the state, the Concord Monitor reported. That’s interesting because Part 1, Article 28-a of the New Hampshire Constitution prohibits the state from mandating that localities spend money unless the state provides the money or the locality approves the spending.
If Concord is really worried about funding essential services, it could always stop funding nonessential ones. But then, that would involve making tough choices.
Mandatory spending is never actually mandatory. There are always choices. City officials in Concord don’t want to be forced to make those decisions, though the people want them to. So they seek refuge in court with a trumped up legal argument.
What shameful behavior.
Related:
Tax cappers call suit ‘political ploy’
City robbing voters of choice, group asserts
The city’s recent court filing questioning the constitutionality of a proposed tax cap is “nothing more than a political ploy” aimed at keeping Concord voters from having a say in the issue, according to Mike Biundo, chairman of the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition.
“The city ought to let the people decide whether to limit taxes and spending in Concord, not the court,” said Biundo, whose group is working to put a cap in place in Concord and Manchester.
City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh on Tuesday filed an appeal with the Merrimack County Superior Court asking a judge to determine whether the proposed cap, which would tie tax increases to a national measure of inflation, is constitutional. The appeal questions a decision from three state agencies, including the attorney general’s office, stating that the cap would not violate state laws.
The coalition wanted the issue to be put before the voters during this year’s November elections. The city council put off the vote until November 2009.
Cavanaugh said yesterday that his filing is not political. He worries about what would happen if the cap passed and someone later challenged the legality of it.
“Whether it goes on the ballot or not is a separate question,” he said. “The question I have is a fundamental legal one as to whether or not it is, in fact, constitutional.”
Cavanaugh and Biundo said they didn’t think any other tax caps in the state have been challenged in court. Tax caps are in place in Derry, Dover, Franklin, Laconia and Nashua. One passed this month in Rochester.
“No one has raised the issue in court,” Cavanaugh said. “We’d like to raise it and get an answer.”
The cap would require a change to the city charter. All charter amendments must be reviewed by the secretary of state, the attorney general and the Department of Revenue Administration. Members of those offices sent the city a letter in September saying they had no problem with the proposed tax cap. State law allows the city to challenge that opinion in court.
Cavanaugh’s filing said the tax cap would interfere with the city’s ability to comply with state laws, such as those requiring it to pay into a retirement program and provide public safety and welfare services.
Biundo said the cap would allow the city council to override the cap with a two-thirds vote when necessary. He said he was not sure whether the coalition would file a response with the court, since the city didn’t name the coalition as a party to the case.
“We certainly plan on playing a role in this process,” he said.
A court hearing has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday.