The City Council’s decision to cut $900,000 from the veterans’ services budget has prompted an outcry from across the country, council President Ed Flynn said.
“I received literally hundreds of calls and texts from residents across Boston, across Massachusetts, and even veterans across the country,” Flynn said. “And they were disappointed in Boston for turning its back on veterans and military families.
“As a member of the U.S. Navy for 24 years, I’m embarrassed about that vote. That’s not what the city is about. The city has always supported veterans and military families.”
Flynn was among five councilors who voted against the city’s $4.2 billion operating budget on Wednesday.
The fallout is still being felt in the cuts to the Boston Police Department, which total nearly $31 million, but outcry to a million-dollar cut that would reduce the veterans department budget by 14% grew equally as fierce on Thursday.
“Cutting veterans programs shows the public and our military families that we don’t keep our promises to veterans and military families,” Flynn told the Herald. “That’s a solemn oath that government has made to support veterans when we put them in harm’s way, and we broke that promise.”
Flynn said the cuts would be most felt by low-income veterans, including those who need financial assistance to pay their bills. It would impact a state program, Chapter 115, which provides qualifying veterans and their dependents with financial assistance for food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and medical care, he said.
Councilor Erin Murphy said the cuts are particularly “deep and destructive” for a veterans office that operates on a modest $6.2 million budget. A $900,000 cut amounts to a 14% reduction in department spending, she said.
Murphy and Flynn joined two other councilors who voted against the operating budget, Frank Baker and Michael Flaherty, in signing onto a joint statement Thursday that outlined their opposition.
The fifth councilor to vote ‘no,’ Gabriela Coletta, did not sign onto the statement, which pointed to $52.9 million in Council amendments that include cuts to veterans services, police, fire, transportation, and public works.
The statement indicates that the councilors believe Mayor Michelle Wu, who expressed concern Wednesday with what her spokesperson described as the “scale and scope of cuts proposed to departments delivering key city services,” will veto the amendments.
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association President Larry Calderone said he was planning to speak with Wu about the proposed cuts on Thursday. He said the Council’s decision to cut millions of dollars from the Boston Police Department budget will lead to an increase in crime.
Calderone said the police officers he’s spoken to are “disgusted” by the Council’s decision to cut nearly $31 million from BPD, adding that it’s “more demoralizing for the rank and file to hear elected officials grandstanding in public.”
“When they talk about cutting $30 million from the police budget across the board, that tells me that they’re going to cut community service officers,” Calderone said. “They’re going to cut walking beats in the neighborhood.
“They’re going to stop hiring overtime to meet the department’s minimum staffing levels. That’s what that tells me — which boils down to less police officers on the street, which equals more crime.”
The four councilors called the initial budget put forward by Wu “sensible, responsible and comprehensive.”
What should have been a collaborative process turned into a “free-for-all” where a “small number of councilors dictated changes and cuts of enormous amounts of money to our public safety, city services and veterans departments,” the statement said.
“Regrettably, this missed opportunity to responsibly and collegially work with each other and with the administration to improve the operating budget with responsible modifications means that the City Council will, again, for the second year in a row, likely not achieve any meaningful input into how our city spends our taxpayers’ hard-earned money,” the statement said.
If the mayor vetoes some or all of the Council’s amendments, a two-thirds vote would be needed for an override. Eight votes would be needed, one more than what was achieved with Wednesday’s budget vote.
