STONINGTON — Members of the Stonington School Board have expressed frustration that members of the town's finance committee have focused too much on line-item control of the education budget over the past few years. However, the question remains whether the boundary has actually been crossed.
In last week's vote, Stonington School Board President Farouk Rajab and school board members Sarah Baker and Megan Blanchett fell one vote short of a majority, and the school board narrowly wrote a letter condemning their actions. voted against sending it to the Finance Committee. In the labeling of the position or line item that you wanted to remove.
School board members, including Commissioner Kevin Agnello and Christopher Donahue, said that while they were dissatisfied with the school board's arguments, they did not believe enough clear lines had been crossed to warrant a written complaint to the school board. He said that he had not been informed.
“If we're alleging that the finance committee did something wrong, we still don't know what went wrong,” Agnello said. “I think everyone understands that the Finance Committee cannot dictate exactly what to do with individual items on the budget. They can still discuss them, reflect on them, object to them, and if necessary You can even make suggestions for individual items to us.”
“We don't have to take them. The only thing we have to do with what they get back is meet the numbers given,” he continued.
Last week's vote came as a result of two separate discussions following a March 26 public hearing on the Town of Stonington's proposed 2024-25 budget. At the public hearing, 17 people spoke in favor of restoring or adding to the town's education budget, far outweighing the opposition, but the finance committee lowered the proposed education budget from 5.65% to 4.5%.
During the discussion, finance commissioners, including Lynne Young, reiterated that federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds should not be used for permanent positions that the town would need to consider for additional funding in the future. They expressed concern that despite the directive, the district is requiring: Allocate these funds to preserve the jobs of the behavioral professionals hired.
Baker and Rajab each say they want transparency, but the Finance Committee has repeatedly “crossed the line” when it comes to discussions, and may even have crossed the line this year by calling for the removal of their positions in deliberations. He said he felt that way.
In fact, Baker said that was what inspired him to write the letter. He said the goal was not to create a negative atmosphere, but to create understanding and separation of discussions, which is important to comply with legal requirements and strengthen cooperation.
“I hope my point here is not to criticize this year's process or the decisions that were made per se, but if we don't acknowledge that the line could change during this year's budget deliberations. , I think we'll be negligent.'' “Maybe this process didn't cross that line, but we want to make sure we don't get near that line again, and we want to make sure we don't cross that line when it comes to the law,” Baker said.
The letter was a second draft, which commissioners said was more restrained than the first, and they said the school board's decision to cut the budget “should be appropriate and is not sufficiently based on the town's current financial situation.” “There is a possibility that this is not the case,” he said. But it was instead based on budget priorities expressed by individual members of the Finance Committee.
Baker cited state cases such as Stamford Board of Education v. Board of Finance and noted that previous efforts to provide item control have yielded results for towns.
Mr. Rajab said he intended to send the letter anyway, but hoped he would have the school board's support in doing so. He expressed the opinion that the Finance Committee has not violated the law at all in recent years.
“They didn't provide a list, but they provided numbers based on a list that they publicly discussed on stage,” he said, adding, “They've done this several times before, and it's their It's not a role.”
Donahue said that despite his frustrations, he did not agree there was any violation by publicly discussing the items. He and Agnello each noted that the board still has the opportunity to adjust the budget as needed.
“You make a good point, but I still don't support sending the letter,” Donahue said. “I understand how you feel, but I would like to continue to build better relationships through conversation and communication, and I personally don't think that sending a letter will accomplish that.”
