How Boston Voters Changed Who Controls the City Budget with Question 1

Most city budget fights are about numbers. Boston’s 2021 Question 1 was about something rarer: who gets to hold the pen.

For most of its modern history, Boston has been a strong-mayor city. The mayor proposed a budget; the City Council could accept it, reject it, or cut line items — but it could not write its own version, and rejecting the budget outright was a blunt instrument nobody wanted to use. In November 2021, voters changed that by amending the city charter. They also ordered the city to create something it had never had: an office dedicated to letting residents vote directly on part of the spending.

Five years on, there is enough record to assess what that vote actually produced.

The problem: a council that could say no, but not “instead”

Under the old charter, the council’s leverage was mostly negative. As Boston.com explained before the vote, the mayor proposed the budget and the council could adopt it, reject it, or reduce line items — but it could not create its own version or enact one without the mayor.

That produced three complaints from reform advocates:

1. No real negotiating position. A council that can only cut has little practical ability to redirect money toward, say, housing, youth jobs, or public health.
2. Accountability only every four years. If residents disliked spending priorities, the only reliable remedy was a mayoral election.
3. Little formal role for residents. Budget hearings existed, but there was no mechanism for residents to decide anything.

Boston’s overall budget is large — more than $4 billion in the general fund — so these were not abstract questions.

Who got involved

• City councilors drove the charter change. Ballotpedia records that the council voted 11-0 on May 19, 2021 to put the measure on the ballot, with Councilors Lydia Edwards and Kenzie Bok among its named supporters.
• Acting Mayor Kim Janey signed off on June 7, 2021, and the Massachusetts Attorney General approved the charter amendment on July 2, 2021 — the standard review step for a home-rule charter change in Massachusetts.
• Community and labor organizations campaigned for it, including the Center for Economic Democracy, the Chinese Progressive Association, and Right to the City. Boston.com also reported support from the NAACP and the Boston Teachers Union.
• Opponents were led by the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a business-backed fiscal watchdog, which warned the change would create “great uncertainty and dysfunction.”

Key takeaway: This was a rules change, not a spending change. Rules changes are harder to explain on a ballot — and they outlast every official currently in office.

What they did, step by step

1. Defined the change narrowly

The measure did not abolish the strong-mayor system. It gave the council the ability, in the words of the charter text as published in Boston’s code, “to amend the budget by reallocating funds among existing or new line items,” and “to override the Mayor’s veto or amendments by a two-thirds vote.” The council still cannot raise the bottom line beyond the mayor’s revenue estimate.

Boston.com reported the practical thresholds: seven of 13 councilors to adopt an amendment, and nine — two-thirds — to override a mayoral veto. The measure also extended council amendment authority to the Boston Public Schools budget, which had been controlled solely by the School Committee.

2. Attached a participatory element

The same amendment required the city to establish “an independent Office of Participatory Budgeting, including an external oversight board, to further public engagement with public spending,” with details left to a later ordinance. Ballotpedia records the amendment as calling for the office by fiscal year 2024.

That pairing was strategic. Giving more power to councilors is an inside-baseball argument; giving residents a direct vote on money is something any voter can picture.

3. Took the home-rule route

Massachusetts cities can amend their charters through a council-initiated process reviewed by the Attorney General and then approved by voters. That path avoided needing a separate act of the state legislature and put the question in front of Boston voters in a municipal election year.

4. Ran a coalition campaign on a low-turnout ballot

Question 1 shared the November 2, 2021 ballot with a competitive mayoral race and two non-binding questions. Supporters ran it as a democracy measure rather than a fight with any individual mayor.

5. Won decisively

Ballotpedia’s tally: 81,885 yes (67.37%) to 39,657 no (32.63%). Boston.com reported the result as roughly 68% in favor. Andres Del Castillo, executive director of Right to the City Boston, called it “a powerful victory from the grassroots.”

What changed

The charter changed permanently. Boston’s council now has amendment and override powers it did not have before, for every budget going forward, regardless of who is mayor. That is the durable result.

The city built the participatory budgeting office. The Office of Participatory Budgeting now sits at City Hall with an External Oversight Board, which has met regularly since December 2023 and publishes minutes and annual reviews.

Residents voted on real money. The pilot cycle, branded Ideas in Action, put $2 million of what the oversight board described as “the City’s $4+ billion general fund budget” on the ballot. Over 4,000 residents voted, and six projects won:

The second cycle got bigger. The city’s FY26 evaluation report documents a $2.2 million pot, 1,203 ideas submitted during idea collection in July 2025, proposal development forums in October and November 2025, voting in January and February 2026, 4,919 voters (4,480 online and 439 on paper), and eight winning projects. The city reports that 91% of forum participants said the sessions helped them understand how budgeting works, and that 42% of October forum attendees returned in November.

Budget conversations moved earlier. With amendment power on the table, negotiations between the council and the administration now happen before adoption rather than as a yes-or-no at the end. That is a subtler shift than the ballot language suggests, but it is the one councilors and advocates point to most.

Key takeaway: Boston voters bought two different things with one vote — permanent leverage for their elected council, and a small but recurring direct say for residents. The first is more powerful; the second is more visible.

Criticisms and limits

The money is small. Two million dollars is about 0.05% of a $4 billion-plus general fund. The oversight board itself flagged that continuing at that level “would likely challenge the program’s long-term mission.”

Turnout is modest. Fewer than 5,000 residents voted in a city of roughly 650,000. That is a respectable pilot number and a weak claim to a citywide mandate. The city reports strongest turnout in Dorchester, Brighton, Roxbury, East Boston, South Boston, and Hyde Park.

Implementation was slow. The charter contemplated the office by fiscal year 2024; the first full resident vote ran in the FY25 pilot cycle. Building an office, hiring staff, seating a board, and designing a process takes longer than campaigns promise.

The oversight board had vacancies. The FY25 annual review notes that three of nine seats remained unfilled as of January 2025, creating quorum problems — a reminder that a new body is only as strong as the appointments that fill it.

The process is demanding. The FY26 evaluation describes the resource intensity of running both trusted-partner outreach and a media campaign, questions raised about paper ballot verification, gaps in communication between phases, and city staff asking for clearer written guidelines on what the funds can pay for. Participants also found the final selection step daunting.

Opponents’ concerns have not been fully tested. The Municipal Research Bureau warned about horse-trading among 13 councilors and risk to the city’s bond rating; supporters say the two-thirds override threshold is high enough to prevent chaos. Reasonable people still disagree, and the real test comes in a year when revenues fall.

A power to amend is not a power to fund. The council still cannot expand the budget, and a mayor retains proposal power, veto power, and control of the departments that execute spending.

Lessons you can use

1. Check whether your charter is the real obstacle. If your council can only cut, no amount of testimony will redirect spending. Read the charter provisions on budget adoption before you plan a campaign.
2. Change rules, not just line items. A budget win lasts a year. A charter amendment governs every budget after it.
3. Pair an insider reform with a resident-facing one. “Let the council amend the budget” plus “let residents vote on projects” is a much easier package to campaign on than either alone.
4. Learn your state’s charter change process. In Massachusetts, a council vote plus mayoral sign-off plus Attorney General review plus a ballot question was enough. Elsewhere you may need a charter commission, a petition drive, or the state legislature.
5. Write the thresholds into the text. Seven votes to amend, nine to override: specific numbers give both sides something concrete to evaluate and make later disputes rarer.
6. Set a deadline for implementation — and expect to enforce it. Boston’s office arrived later than the ballot measure contemplated. Build in reporting requirements and a body that can say so publicly.
7. Create the oversight board and then fill it. Vacancies quietly defeat accountability structures. Ask who appoints, by when, and what happens if they do not.
8. Start small, publish evaluations, and use them. Boston’s public cycle reports — with voter counts, idea counts, retention rates, and staff complaints — are exactly what lets residents argue for a bigger pot next year.
9. Be honest about scale. Advocates who describe a $2 million process as transforming a $4 billion budget lose credibility. Describe it as a beachhead and argue for growth on the record.
10. Expect the fiscal-watchdog critique and prepare an answer. Bond ratings, predictability, and executive accountability are legitimate concerns; the response is process design, not dismissal.

What you can do next

• Read your city charter’s budget sections — usually available on your city clerk’s website — and find out exactly what your council can and cannot do. Our directory can help you locate the right offices.
• Attend or testify at a budget hearing. Check the town hall calendar and prepare using how to speak at a city council meeting.
• Ask your council whether any participatory budgeting exists locally, and how big the pot is. Our article on New York City’s participatory budgeting shows what a mature program looks like.
• Build support for a charter or ordinance change by starting an initiative, and organize the argument publicly by starting a debate.
• If budget terms are unfamiliar, start with how city budgets work and the glossary.