The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
Lt. governor hopefuls echo running mates in the debate
EAST HAMPTON — Saying it is time to move forward, the Board of Finance voted 5-2 to adopt a compromise intended to end the budget standoff.
“Let’s do what’s best for the town,” finance board Chairman Richard Brown said in urging adoption of the compromise.
“This [impasse] is not helping our town. If fact, it’s hurting our town,” said Board of Education member (and former finance board chairman) Marc Lambert.
The board’s action Wednesday could set the stage for a fourth referendum later next month, a referendum that could also include “a Goldilocks question.”
That term arose as finance board member Ted Turner proposed a possible solution to the problem: He called for placing a question on the eventual referendum ballot asking if the budget is “too high, too low, or just right.”
The board unanimously adopted the proposal, which had almost immediately acquired the name “the Goldilocks question.”
The overall compromise was worked out by Town Manager Michael Maniscalco and Superintendent of Schools Paul K. Smith in the wake of last week’s defeat of the general government budget. It marked the third time in five months residents rejected the town budget.
The proposed Maniscalco/ Smith compromise calls for reallocating capital spending for the Board of Education to pay for safety locks for doors in three schools, to purchase Chromebooks for sixth graders and to fill two teaching positions eliminated earlier in the budget cycle. The finance board voted 5-2 along a party-line split to approve the proposal.
“Everybody’s fairly unhappy with it, so it must be a good compromise,” Maniscalco said Wednesday.
On Thursday, Maniscalco said he is working to arrange a special Town Council meeting next week with an eye toward setting a date for a fourth referendum “sometime in late October.”
The impasse created by successive defeats of the general government/town budget has degenerated into often antagonistic battle of social media postings that are eroding trust between the finance board and several education supporters.
“There’s way, way, way too much fodder on social media,” finance board Vice Chairwoman Janine Jantonio said. “Sometimes it’s best not try and explain what we’re doing because there is so much twisted, misquoted or purposefully twisted” assertions on social media.
The issue of funding safety locks has become particularly acrimonious. Installation of the locks was one of a series of safety procedures recommended by the state following the Sandy Hook shootings in December 2012 . Several education supporters appeared to suggest the finance board was putting children at risk by not allocating money for the locks, a claim the board emphatically rejected.
The night the initial budget was defeated, Smith noted the money for the locks was contained in the capital portion of the town budget.
Despite Smith’s central role in crafting the proposed compromise, the Board of Education rejected the plan 7-1 during a meeting Monday. The finance board began Wednesday by hearing complaints from several critics of its budget-making efforts, followed by closely questioning Smith and Maniscalco.
The meeting began with Smith calling upon the finance board to adopt the proposal endorsed by the school board. That proposal, known as “the summer plan” (because of when it was proposed), would allocate $270,000 in capital funding for a variety of items: asbestos abatement ($25,000), safety and security ($20,000), HVAC units ($30,000) and laptops ($37,500).
In addition, the proposal would reallocate $150,000 for security locks (for Memorial, Center and East Hampton Middle schools) and $80,500 for Chromebooks for grades six and nine, to the Board of Education operating budget “solely for the purpose of teacher salaries and benefits.”
Specifically, supporters said the proposal would result in three teaching positions being filled.
To make up the cost of the locks and Chromebooks, the money would be paid from the general fund.
Late in the meeting, the finance board rejected a motion by its two Democratic members that called for adopting “the summer proposal.” However, Director Finance Jeffrey M. Jylkka said the money from the fund balance is not available, and, if the money were to be raised from taxes, it would increase the tax rate by 1.1 mills.
Maniscalco also cautioned officials that reallocating fund balance money for operations would not be taken well by bond rating agencies. “It’s not recommended by staff [Jylkka in particular], because it’s considered that basically you are living beyond your means,” he explained Thursday.
A number of speakers Wednesday said they will continue to vote against the budget because they believe it is too low and does not include enough money for education.