City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson apologized to veterans for a proposal that would have cut $900,000 from that city department’s budget, but stopped short of taking the blame, saying the idea came from one of her colleagues.

“It was a low blow and I know that it hurt,” Fernandes Anderson, who headed the Council’s budget process, said at a Wednesday meeting. “I didn’t ask for it and I actually fought against it. I’m not going to embarrass anyone and say who actually proposed it.

“I’m just going to say on behalf of the Council to all the veterans in Boston and in America, I apologize. I take that responsibility, because again, I could have fought more,” she added. “It’s a reimbursable fund, but it’s just a bad look and it looks disrespectful.”

City Councilor Erin Murphy, however, isn’t buying it.

As chair of the committee that held the budget hearings, Fernandes Anderson had “final say” on which of the Council’s collective amendments moved forward, and thus, where the department cuts would be, Murphy said.

“There was a shared amendment report that we could see that she then turned into the committee report,” Murphy told the Herald. “As chair, she definitely had the final say of how she put the committee report together.”

Fernandes Anderson also diverted blame, this time onto the mayor, for another controversial plan the body approved, that would have slashed nearly $31 million from the Boston Police Department.

She said Mayor Michelle Wu is the one showing disrespect to the city’s police officers for failing to settle their contract. The lack of agreement left the City Council without any clear sense of how much money was needed to fund BPD salaries or the department as a whole, Fernandes Anderson asserted.

The cuts to the police department, which included a $22 million reduction in overtime, would not have resulted in any layoffs, Fernandes Anderson said. Further, she argued that the budget reductions would have left BPD with more money than it is on pace to spend this fiscal year.

“Settle the contract so that we understand exactly what is needed in the Boston Police Department, what they deserve, what is the contract, so we understand real numbers,” Fernandes Anderson said. “Three years they’re waiting for a contract to be settled, and it’s not settled.”

She added, “Treat people with dignity. They are our working class. And that’s how they should be treated, with respect.”

Both cuts, to the police department and the Office of Veterans Services, were promptly vetoed last week by Wu, who also shot down a large chunk of the Council’s remaining budget amendments, which totaled roughly $52.9 million.

Wu pushed back on the councilor’s comments, saying in a statement, “A cut of that scale would be devastating” to the Boston Police Department.

“It would be completely disruptive to the operation of our public safety infrastructure,” Wu said. “Maintaining public confidence in public safety has been key to a relatively strong post-pandemic recovery and is important to how we continue to attract businesses and support residents in healing after the pandemic.”

According to her office, contract negotiations with the department’s largest union, the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, are still ongoing.

The police union filed for arbitration with the state, and has been accepted into that process with the Joint Labor-Management Committee, which assists in resolving collective bargaining disputes involving municipalities and their police officers and firefighters.

The move for state involvement comes after both sides reached a stalemate on contractual priorities.

The union’s top five asks are a fair and proper pay increase and compensation, standardized educational incentives for all officers, repeal of all residency requirements that now stand at 10 years, increased public safety detail compensation, and a restructured work schedule.

Wu’s top priorities differ, according to her campaign website, in that they outline a “blueprint for police reform through the union contracts.” She is seeking to tighten up protocols around discipline for police misconduct in a way that discourages decisions made based on racial bias, nepotism or favoritism.

The mayor is also looking to crack down on overtime and “over-policing,” by building stipulations into the contract that would minimize routine overtime, protect against overtime abuse, divert nonviolent 911 calls to alternative response teams, and civilianize traffic enforcement.

Wu said on GBH’s Boston Public Radio Tuesday that she had been looking to avoid arbitration, which public safety unions are entitled to “if there’s basically a stalemate or if there’s an impasse that has been reached in bargaining.”

“We pushed very much to show that we believe there was still room for common ground and progress,” Wu said.

A union spokesman declined to comment.

The City Council will vote on the mayor’s returned budget, which includes the amendments she vetoed, next Wednesday. The body would need eight “no” votes to override the mayor’s new proposal.

If this occurs, the $52.9 million in Council amendments, including the millions of dollars in cuts to basic city services, including the police, veterans, transportation, public works and library departments, would go into effect.

The Council approved a $4.2 billion operating budget, via a 7-5 vote last week, and a source told the Herald the body doesn’t have the votes for an override. Two councilors who voted for the amended budget last week may flip, and vote in favor of the mayor’s final budget proposal.

“We’re in conversation with councilors regularly about the budget,” a Wu spokesperson told the Herald.