Charter Committee Rejects Balancing Municipal and School Spending In Charter

By a vote of 4-1, the Charter Review committee dismissed suggestions for adding a general statement to the Charter seeking equity between school and municipal spending. Even though the suggestions sought only a general statement seeking balance between school and municipal spending, the Review Committee focused on the difficult mechanics of trying to proscribe balance between municipal and school spending.

Charter Review Chairman Mike Manugian argued, "The town has no direct jurisdiction over the regional school committee. It is an independent board. So, we can't order them to do certain things on schedule; however we can request and I'm sure they will do their best to accommodate the request."

Following on Chairman Manugian's comments, Peter Cunningham said that whenever a town is a member of a regional school district, the school district is a separate legal entity from the town. He said that it was not possible for a town formally to influence a school's request for funding. He said the town could only accept or deny a funding request and that if more money is requested than is available, a town's only legal recourse is to seek an override. He summed up his view saying, "I don't think we're going to be able to deal with that in the Charter."

Charter Committee member Jane Allen spoke to the frustration of many parents and school supporters saying that many residents are concerned with spending differences between the schools and the town and that the schools themselves have similar concerns.

Allen said that when she was a school committee member, the school budget grew at the same rate as the town budget. But, she said that the percentage increase going to the schools is substantially lower now than when she was on the committee and lower than historic spending in the budget.

She continued by adding that the percentage growth of the municipal budget compared to the growth of the school budget, "is an issue people are concerned about." She added, "I don't know how we address it...I was going to sit with the superintendent and talk with her about it."

Later, Allen further detailed her argument that school supporters had felt deceived in the past because "Selectmen stand up there [at Town Meeting] and say, "this is a flat-funded budget - we're level funding everything [both schools and municipal budgets]." But, she said, after making such statements, Selectmen later recanted by saying that the budget was level-funded budget, "except for salaries on the town side." She added, "Every time there is an override, it's always on the schools - there has never been an override for any town functions for the 30 years I've been here. I think this is where some of the frustration has come in."

Despite Allen's observations, Manugian said, "The ball is entirely in the school committee's court." He said that once the school committee proposes what they think is reasonable, then the Finance Committee's only option is to figure out how to pay for what the School Committee wants. He implied that the Finance Committee may not legally negotiate with the School Committee over budget requests. He added, "And then the voters ultimately decide if an override is required, whether the school committee gets the money."

Summarizing by saying that it was not reasonable to include language seeking a balance between school and municipal funding in the Charter, Chairman Manugian said, "There's certainly politics involved and there's certainly rhetoric involved in the politics."

He then suggested if people understood how the budgeting process for schools actually worked, then people would understand why the Charter Review Committee voted to reject their suggestions. As part of the motion to reject the suggested changes, Manugian included a proviso that the Review Committee explain to the public in some unspecified forum how the school budget process works.