To The Editor:

The recently approved municipal budget was presented as a responsible, forward-looking document. However, a closer look shows that its spending choices reflect priorities that many residents may reasonably question.

Budgets reveal what a town chooses to invest in, what it delays, and what it decides it can do without. In this case, the budget favors new administrative layers and discretionary spending while scaling back or eliminating requests for positions that directly serve the public.

Most troubling is the decision — barely two months into a new administration — to add a Director of Operations position in the First Selectman’s office. This is not a minor adjustment; it represents a fundamental shift in how the town is governed. The First Selectman is elected by the voters to serve as the town’s chief executive. Adding an unelected administrative layer between that office and department heads diffuses accountability and moves Newtown toward a town-manager model — without public debate or voter approval. This is especially notable given that a Charter Revision Commission is being formed, which is the appropriate venue for evaluating such a structural change.

The budget also reflects a willingness to increase compensation and administrative spending early in the term. Compensation adjustments were approved for two employees, one of whom also received a promotion. Whether or not these decisions are defensible, they signal a spending philosophy that prioritizes internal growth at a time when residents are being asked to absorb higher taxes.

Capital spending decisions further reinforce this pattern. One bullet point in the budget authorizes an additional $140,000 for the Public Works HVAC project, a nearly 50% increase to the project cost. There was no referral to the Public Building and Site Committee, no request for proposals, and no clear discussion of alternatives. Large capital increases deserve careful vetting, particularly when they are added midstream.

These choices matter because budgeting is a zero-sum exercise. While new administrative and capital costs are being added, requests for public-facing positions — including police and building inspection — were removed. Residents may reasonably ask whether expanding management capacity should take precedence over services that directly affect safety, responsiveness, and quality of life.

In a year that will bring a significant tax increase, spending discipline matters as much as total dollars. The budget process is still underway, and there remains an opportunity to better align expenditures with the town’s core responsibilities. I hope the Board of Finance and the Legislative Council will revisit these priorities and present voters with a plan that places greater emphasis on restraint, balance, and long-term sustainability.

A. Jeffrey Capeci

Newtown