There’s nothing wrong with conflict in city government, as long as people are fighting over the right things.
In Portland, a contentious budget process derailed this week, and elected officials and city staff will have to work hard to get it back on track.
The heart of the dispute is the city-run India Street Public Health Center, which would be closed under City Manager Jon Jennings’ budget proposal, and replaced by services provided by the nonprofit Portland Community Health Center. India Street is the primary care provider for about 2,000 people. It also has special services like a needle exchange and care for people with HIV/AIDS that are interrelated and not easily transferred to another facility.
The conflict arose when Mayor Ethan Strimling criticized the budget, pointing out that Jennings proposed increasing spending to fix streets and sidewalks at the same time that he would cut a clinic. “Does choosing public works over preventative health reflect our shared values?” Strimling asked rhetorically.
The answer he got was a rebuke from a majority of city councilors, who considered the comparison a low blow.
The criticism is largely deserved. Strimling knows that budgets as large as Portland’s are the product of many independent decisions that have little to do with each other.
Public infrastructure doesn’t get better when it’s neglected. The city has a responsibility to maintain public assets, regardless of what goes on in other departments. It’s true that the public health budget is under fire, but the attack comes from Augusta, not the city manager’s office. Portland is losing close to $1 million of grants funded by tobacco settlement money, because the Healthy Maine Partnerships program was changed by the LePage administration. That’s part of what’s driving these proposals.
However, the city councilors’ response was also off base.
According to the city charter, the mayor has a duty to comment on the manager’s budget, not rubber stamp it. He just won a citywide election, and he is supposed to represent public opinion.
Strimling expressed valid concerns about the aggressive pace for a decision on the India Street clinic closure. There are only three weeks to go before a final vote on the plan, with the details of the transition to be worked out later. That’s creating anxiety among the clinic’s patients and the people who advocate for them.
The council should be having a debate over whether it’s wise for the city to provide direct clinical services, or whether those services would be better delivered elsewhere.
It’s not a question of public works over preventative health, but of the most effective way to marshal limited resources to take care of some of the city’s most vulnerable residents .
That’s the debate that should be taking place – through this budget process and beyond. There is nothing wrong with conflict when it’s a fight worth having.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.