Date: Fri 04-Apr-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: STEVEB

Quick Words:

council-budget-schools

Full Text:

Council Holds Firm On School Funding Cut

B Y S TEVE B IGHAM

The Legislative Council Wednesday opted not to restore the $200,000 it had

previously cut from the Board of Education budget.

Council member Jack Rosenthal made a last ditch effort to have the money put

back into the budget, but his motion to do so did not receive a second.

The referendum date has been set for April 22.

School supporters who are opposed to the cuts must now decide how they want to

vote on this year's proposed $52.6 million budget. Fed up with what they call

"arbitrary" cuts to the schools, they want the money restored. However, the

school supporters may find themselves in a dilemma when they go to the polls.

If the they vote "no," hoping the council will reconsider its cuts, their plan

could backfire. A "no" vote could prompt the council to assume that more cuts

need to be made to the school board's $29.75 million request.

"Will a `no' vote mean the town wants more funding for education or less?"

said Mary Burnham of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road. "Will a `no' vote mean the town

wants more or less funding spent on the first selectman's budget?"

Mrs Burnham said she has talked with school supporters who say they don't know

what to do. The outspoken parent took issue with council chairman Pierre

Rochman's comments last week about how his board could not "put much weight"

into requests made by residents to restore the school funds. The comments were

made by only a handful of people who showed up at last week's public hearing.

"Mr Rochman implied that the machine vote to take place later in April will

indicate to the council what the town thinks," she wrote in a letter to The

Bee this week. "Well, Mr Rochman, think again."

Mr Rochman said he expects council members will interpret a "yes" or "no" vote

in different ways. As for public hearings, Mr Rochman said people view the

hearings as an opportunity to sway the council, but feels that when the

turnout is light, it would be dangerous for the council to act on what they

say. He said that because there are such small turnouts at meetings, the town

is moving closer and closer to a representative form of government, where the

council members need to rely solely on what they feel is best for the town.

Council member Jack Rosenthal said the council's job of interpreting a "yes"

or "no" vote on the budget could be made much easier if the town charter was

changed to allow taxpayers to vote on two separate budgets - one from the

Board of Education and the other from the Board of Selectmen.

"That way, you wouldn't have to spin your wheels if the budget is defeated,"

he said.

The Charter Revision Commission recently handed its proposed charter changes

over to the Legislative Council. The changes do not include a recommendation

to separate the two budgets, but a committee of the council, chaired by

Melissa Pilchard, last week requested that the charter panel reconsider the

way the town votes on the budget to al low two separate votes.

Mr Rosenthal said the budget process would also be more effective if the

council held a public hearing prior to going to work on the budget. He

believes it would assist the council in understanding what its constituency is

looking for in the budget. That change to the charter is also now being

considered. However, Mrs Pilchard's committee has recommended that the

pre-hearing be kept out of the charter because it feels residents would only

get a part of the picture at a hearing that soon. Finance Director Ben Spragg

points out that residents, at that stage of the budget, would only receive the

Board of Education and Board of Selectmen requests.

"You won't see any revenue and you won't know if your taxes are going up," he

explained.