The abstract cut is always the deepest

Both the mayor of New London and the city manager of Norwich released their budget proposals and they once again demonstrated it is easier to propose cutting someone else’s budget in the abstract than it is to set your own budget in the specific.

In New London, Mayor Michael Passero proposed $49.86 million for city government spending, a 4.95 percent increase over the current budget. That’s the side of the budget the mayor provides to the City Council in detail.

Passero proposes directing $42.93 million in city funding toward the education budget, a 2.5 percent or $488,000 increase. The City Council approves funding for about two-thirds of the school budget though taxes and by passing through the Educational Cost Sharing funds from the state. The remainder of the New London school budget is grant funded.

That $488,000 increase in city funding for the schools falls far short of the $2.5 million increase that the New London Board of Education says it needs from the city to support its nearly $70 million budget. Under state law, however, Passero cannot propose the specific cuts that would allow the Board of Education to run city schools with $2 million less than they say they need.

Ultimately it will be up to the City Council to set both the municipal and education sides of the budget. But while it will go through the city budget and set spending line by line, for education it can only set the bottom line. That leaves it up to the school board to find the cuts necessary to live within the means set by the mayor and council.

The intent of this arrangement is to prevent councils and selectmen from getting their noses under the tent when it comes to directing education policy. That’s the domain of boards of education. But it also can make it easier for a council to lop spending from an education budget because it knows the dirty work will be left to school board members.

No surprise then that Passero could not figure out how his city could possibly run with less than his proposed 4.95 percent spending hike, but the schools should do fine with a 2.5 percent increase.

It was a similar deal in Norwich, where City Manager John Salomone recommended the City Council provide $77.7 million in education spending, a 2 percent increase. The Board of Education says it needs a 9 percent increase. The school board contends it has been underfunded by the council for years and that it cannot meet increased costs associated with larger numbers of special-education and English as a Second Language students without getting the boost in funding requested.

Salomone said in proposing the 2 percent increase for education he was looking at “what I think the city can afford.”

“It’s not based on any one item. It’s more an affordability question than anything else,” he told Day Staff Writer Claire Bessette.

As for affordability on the city side, where Salomone has to get specific about spending, he said a 3.4 percent increase will be needed to support those services, bringing the municipal budget to $45.1 million.

So to recap, the schools must get by with 2 percent to keep things affordable, while municipal spending should go up 3.4 percent because, well, that’s what Salomone needs.

My prediction, neither the New London nor the Norwich boards of education will take this experiment in abstract funding well.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.