Moderates Slam Mamdani Office for “Back-Room” Budget Negotiations

Sources say major funding decisions were made in informal meetings with caucus leaders; the mayor’s comms team dismissed that characterization

A coalition of moderate City Council members has accused Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s transition team of conducting budget negotiations through informal meetings with progressive caucus leaders rather than through transparent processes that include all Council members, raising concerns about governance approach and political favoritism in the incoming administration.

The criticism emerged after several Council members learned through media reports rather than official channels about preliminary budget agreements on affordable housing funding, education spending, and public safety allocations. Sources describe a process where Mamdani’s budget director met repeatedly with Working Families Party-aligned Council members to negotiate major line items before presenting proposals to the full Council.

“This isn’t how democratic governance works,” said Council Member David Carr, who represents a swing district in Queens. “Every Council member represents constituents who deserve a voice in budget decisions. Working out deals with political allies before the rest of us even see proposals undermines the legislative process and treats the Council as a rubber stamp.”

The complaints reflect broader tensions between Mamdani’s progressive coalition and moderate Council members who represent districts where voters have more mixed views on issues like policing, taxation, and development. These moderates hold significant leverage given the Council’s relatively narrow progressive majority–their defection on key votes could block major elements of Mamdani’s agenda.

Mamdani’s communications director dismissed the characterization of back-room dealing, describing the meetings as standard government practice where executive offices consult with legislative leaders before formally proposing policies. She noted that previous mayors regularly consulted with Council leadership and committee chairs before public budget releases.

“Every administration conducts preliminary discussions with legislative partners to refine proposals before formal presentation,” said the spokesperson. “Characterizing normal government coordination as ‘back-room dealing’ is political theater from Council members who are upset they weren’t individually consulted about every line item. That’s not how government works and has never been how government works.”

However, critics point to key differences between consulting with formal Council leadership–the Speaker, Majority Leader, and relevant committee chairs–and negotiating primarily with ideological caucuses. They argue that the latter approach politicizes budget decisions and sidelines members who don’t align with the mayor’s political faction.

Brennan Center research on municipal governance emphasizes that effective executive-legislative relationships require balancing partisan coalition-building with inclusive processes that give all legislators meaningful input. Overreliance on either approach can generate dysfunction–either gridlock when opposition blocks all initiatives, or rubber-stamping when legislatures abdicate oversight responsibilities.

The controversy has reignited debates about transparency in budget processes. Good government groups have long criticized New York City’s budget opacity, where crucial decisions occur in negotiations between mayoral staff and Council leadership with limited public visibility or opportunity for input from rank-and-file Council members or constituents.

“Budget transparency isn’t just about posting documents online,” explained Rachel Fauss, senior research analyst at Reinvent Albany. “It’s about meaningful opportunities for all stakeholders–Council members, community boards, advocacy organizations, and residents–to understand proposals, offer input, and see how their input influenced final decisions. Back-channel negotiations undermine that process.”

Some political observers note that Mamdani’s approach reflects contemporary progressive movement strategy, which emphasizes building power through organized constituencies and leveraging that power to achieve policy goals. From this perspective, working closely with aligned Council members represents democratic accountability to the coalition that elected him rather than problematic favoritism.

“Voters elected Mamdani specifically because of his policy platform and political commitments,” said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party. “Working with like-minded legislators to deliver on that platform is exactly what democratic accountability looks like. The idea that he should treat all Council members identically regardless of whether they share his agenda is naive about how politics works.”

However, governance experts distinguish between appropriate political coalition-building and processes that exclude legitimate stakeholders from meaningful participation. Manhattan Institute scholars note that effective mayors build governing coalitions that extend beyond their base, creating room for compromise that enables sustainable policy implementation.

“Governing is different from campaigning,” explained Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute. “Campaigns mobilize base supporters, but governance requires building broader coalitions and creating buy-in from diverse constituencies. Mayors who govern only for their base typically face sustained opposition that makes implementation difficult and sets up backlash in future elections.”

The dispute has practical implications for Mamdani’s legislative agenda. Several moderate Council members have indicated they may withhold support for controversial budget items unless they receive stronger consultation and opportunities to influence outcomes. With the Council able to modify the mayor’s budget proposal through majority vote, moderates could force compromises that dilute progressive priorities.

Some Council members have proposed formal reforms to budget processes, including earlier public release of preliminary proposals, mandatory committee hearings on major items, and structured opportunities for amendments before final votes. These reforms would reduce executive flexibility but increase transparency and legislative input.

Mamdani allies have warned that such reforms could lead to gridlock and prevent timely budget adoption, potentially forcing delays and continuing resolutions that disrupt city services. They argue that some degree of executive leadership and streamlined processes is necessary for effective governance, particularly in a large, complex city government.

As budget negotiations continue ahead of the preliminary budget release in January, the process questions may prove as contentious as the substantive policy debates. How Mamdani navigates relationships with moderate Council members will significantly influence his ability to advance his agenda and could set precedents for executive-legislative relations throughout his tenure. Political observers will watch closely to see whether he adapts his approach to build broader coalitions or doubles down on working primarily through progressive allies, accepting the risks of sustained opposition from moderates.