Video Link – Northampton Open Media: 2-20-25 City Council
The following discussions and statements are transcribed from the 2-20-25 City Council meeting. At this meeting, 5 Councilors voted against a $600,000 allocation to the Northampton Public Schools and 3 Councilors voted to approve the funds. The motion failed 5-3.
Mayor Sciarra speaks about financial order for school allocation
Video: 2:35
Alex Jarrett: That brings us to financial orders on first reading. We have 25.217, an order to make a $600,000 midyear appropriation to Northampton Public Schools. I’m going to read the language here, submitted at the request of the Northampton School Committee by Mayor Gina Louise Shera, without recommendation:
“Ordered that the Northampton City Council appropriate the additional sum of $600,000 for the purpose of Northampton Public Schools, bringing the total FY2 Northampton Public Schools budget to $41,760,457. To meet this appropriation, $600,000 will be appropriated from the Fiscal Stability Stabilization Fund.”
We also have a memo from Portia Bonner that details exactly how much money would go to which schools. Mayor Sciarra, would you like to speak to this?
Mayor Sciarra: Sure. So, last Thursday, the school committee voted “to instruct the superintendent to request from the City Council and the mayor a midyear appropriation of $600,000.” So, I have submitted it as requested by the Northampton School Committee, but without my recommendation and for the purposes of discussion. As the school committee wanted to bring this conversation back to you, the Council.
During the meeting, few specifics were discussed, and some members wanted to understand how the amount was decided on and what it would be used for. Superintendent Bonner asked where the $600,000 amount came from, “considering that, talking about fiscal year 2025, it was a number of $452,000 or so. So, what happened? How are you coming up with this estimate – or this guesstimation – of $600,000?”
The response from Member Stein was that, “$450,000 is, in part, knowing how much we cut, and it’s in part knowing what I want to add is things that we had not cut. It’s an imperfect number.”
So, there was discussion about whether or not to include in the motion that it be rolled into the base, and Superintendent Bonner requested that anything at this late stage in the year be rolled into the base so that she could, quote, “maintain those positions and I’m not cutting them in June,” end quote. She also noted that any teachers—so Unit A members hired after the start of the school year—must receive a pink slip at the end of the year according to the NASE contract language.
She said she did have some higher priorities that they were looking at for next year, like interventionists and a special ed teacher at Ryan Road, that they could try to hire now if there was a guarantee that it could carry into next year and get built into the base.
I’ll remind the Council, of course, that last month in January we did give a midyear appropriation of $40,000, which I have said will be rolled into the base for FY26. As that is the only, I think, reasonable thing to do with the midyear appropriation, meaning that it would at least double to $80,000 and likely more for FY26.
So again, at the meeting (excuse me) there was not an exploration – or really sort of – discussion about the $600,000…
Quaverly Rothenberg: Point of Order. How can the mayor be summarizing as a member of the body?
Alex Jarrett: The mayor is bringing the order to us and is recognized.
Quaverly Rothenberg: Can we clarify that the mayor is not speaking as a member or on behalf of it?
Alex Jarrett: That’s correct. You’re not speaking on behalf of the school committee, you’re speaking…
Mayor Sciarra: No, I’m not.
Quaverly Rothenberg: I just raised that because we had a discussion at the break about whether we could recognize the other member who was here. We decided that we couldn’t, so I just wanted to clarify that.
Mayor Sciarra: Right, so I’m… This is… I’m speaking this order and trying to give background to what brought this Order and what the discussion was. So, there wasn’t a discussion of that the $600,000 for roughly three months would be $2.4 million for a year, depending on the positions.
Again, there weren’t specifics talked about regarding which positions, so without information, it’s hard to know exactly what they would be over a full year. But if you take $600,000 for three months and multiply it, it would be $2.4 million. Um, but this also doesn’t take into account health insurance benefits or unemployment claims if the positions are pink-slipped, which would be an additional cost to the school budget.
At the end of the discussion, Member LaBounty said she was concerned that, quote “if building into the base was in the motion, it would just be a no from the Council.” So, the original motion stood. There was sort of a recognition that they were choosing to ask for one-time funds.
So, as you heard tonight, this discussion came after another hard public comment period, as people said, that included parents of kids with IEPs and the struggles they’re having, and a special education teacher who said she was resigning because of the stress. Those, you know, again, shared how very challenging classrooms and school environments are now.
So, um, you know, if there is one child in Northampton Public Schools who isn’t receiving the services and the support they need, that is a crisis for that student and for that student’s family. And because every child’s well-being is our shared responsibility, a crisis for the entire Northampton community.
It is a crisis. In a crisis, we must act with urgency to do all that we can, but we should not fixate on what we can’t do at the expense of exploring all that we can do.
One School Committee member, in support of the recommendation, said, quote “If nothing else, it’s a gesture. If we can’t hire all the staff or if we can’t manage to do it, we need to let the community know that we hear them, and we care about them, and that we acknowledge their pain.” end quote
You know, I think I speak on behalf of every individual in city government and in an elective office when I say that we do hear, and we care, and acknowledge the pain that has followed the loss of the Northampton Public Schools positions this year. It is exactly the sort of disruption that we should never risk repeating again. But what caused this disruption is making commitments for recurring expenditures without having identified the needed recurring revenue.
$600,000 spent over roughly the final two to three months of the school year on new hires would, again, over a year, likely be around $2.4 million next year, and still more beyond that. Without identified revenue to sustain that commitment, we would very soon face another shortfall and another round of disruptive cuts. This would not do anything to help students, nor the people briefly hired, and deny them the opportunity to land a more stable job.
In a crisis, we must do all we can. I entered this office still during a crisis—the pandemic – that wreaked havoc on schools in Northampton and across the country. I also faced the onset of a budget crisis, which I talked about in 2022, since Northampton Public Schools was on the verge of exhausting school choice reserve funds and federal ESSER funds that were being used to help cover the costs of increased hiring and compensation and escalating costs.
Faced with these enormous challenges every year of my tenure, we have stretched the budget more and more so we could provide every possible sustainable dollar to our children’s education. That is why the last three years are the only three consecutive years in the last three decades with annual increases in the city’s contribution for NPS of at least 5%—at 5.07%, 7.41%, and 8.99%, to be exact.
Does this mean schools have enough? Absolutely not. Until there is a sea change in how schools are funded nationally and statewide, I don’t think schools will ever have enough.
I’m never going to stop trying to steer more money into our schools, but it has to be sustainable funding. If the only thing we can do will make the situation much worse very quickly, it is not a solution.
I am early in the process of creating the FY26 budget. We are dealing with an unbelievable amount of economic uncertainty at the moment, not to mention personal uncertainty for many. That has to be acknowledged, from potential economic shocks from a destabilized national economy to the huge potential loss of federal grants.
While also handling the needs – the other needs – that we have in departments, as we’ve talked about and as mentioned again tonight, we’re building up additions in fire rescue, for example. This year we are also negotiating all union contracts in the city and schools.
So, at this time, I cannot tell you how this additional expenditure recommended by the school committee would be sustainably incorporated into the budget. Some have suggested that we could use more aggressive budget estimates to generate more upfront revenue for schools and less free cash at the end of the fiscal year.
We just had a discussion about this.
We already used more aggressive estimates for the current fiscal year, and as I detailed three weeks ago, Director Nardi just talked about, we are planning to use even more aggressive estimates for FY26 at some considerable risk in an attempt to sustain the $2 million from the Fiscal Stability fund that was transferred this year for NPS.
Some have suggested we rely more heavily on our reserves.
If draining our reserves would solve the problem, I would drain the reserves. No one has an emotional attachment to reserves. But all this would do is create a giant deficit once the reserves are drained, leading not only to very severe staff cuts but less money for all of our long-term needs. And again, as we’re in a moment of great national uncertainty, perhaps our short-term needs.
I have spent years in public office advocating for school funding. I came into the mayor’s office with a pledge of an annual 4% increase for NPS. More than I committed for any other department, in more than had been committed before, and we’ve gone beyond that pledge every year.
It breaks me to be put in a position where I can’t advocate for additional appropriation for the schools.
Does that mean there’s nothing else we can do for the schools? No.
For example, we could be having much more discussion about the ways to more effectively use our existing resources. We could be bringing together city officials, administrators, parents, teachers, staff to better promote our public schools and persuade more families to choose NPS and keep more local tax revenue in NPS.
But it’s very hard to do that work if we keep having the same discussion about state and federally recommended fiscal management principles over and over again.
If our charge is to help kids in need now, then with respect to my school committee colleagues, whom I know only want the best for our kids, we need more than gestures. And we can’t repeat past budgetary mistakes.
We need less confrontation and more collaboration.
There is so much energy and so much love for our schools in this room, on Zoom, from those sitting in front of me, those behind me, everyone who’s been coming to meeting after meeting desperately wants to make our schools the best they can be, and there are plenty of people who can’t come to meetings who also feel the same way.
So, however you vote in this order, I trust that we can all come together afterward, and we can do right by our teachers, our administrators, our staff, and our students. But we need to work together.
Thank you for listening to me. Director Nardi and Superintendent Bonner are also here for questions around this order. Thank you.
Marianne LaBarge (Ward 6) asks questions of Dr. Bonner related to staff injuries and hiring process
Video 2:45:51
Marianne LaBarge: I do have some questions for you, and I’ve heard what the mayor had to say also. We all know we’re in a crisis, and when we’re in a really bad crisis, as a Councilor, I’ve never seen it this way.
My concern is, and I do have some residents in my Ward who have, one has a son at Bridge Street School, and he talked very elegantly at the school committee meeting. I did Zoom in, watching it, and I couldn’t believe what I heard him say about how his son had five days with a paraprofessional, and he is autistic, like my husband’s little sister was too. And I couldn’t believe it when he said he couldn’t believe what he was hearing about the teachers and the children.
My question to you is, looking at that meeting and a lot of the notes that were taken, is about the teachers and students are being injured. I would like to know, are they on workman’s comp, some of these teachers?
Dr. Bonner: Okay, Councilor LaBarge, I don’t have the actual data in front of me, but the list that was read by one of NASE’s executive board members of the incidents that may have occurred just this school year, those incidents may actually have just been a few or recurring students who were, um, you know, that the staff were actually working with. And so these were these injury reports that were submitted to workers’ comp. Whether they’re actually on workers’ comp, I don’t know. That’s the data I don’t have before you, but I will share that, the injuries that were listed, it was for this school year, and there was no comparison to a base of what happened last year.
Marianne LaBarge: That’s what I was going to ask you.
Dr. Bonner: So, you know, it was read in the moment in terms of what has been occurring this year. And I don’t want to dismiss that there is not problems at, particularly Bridge Street School, which was mentioned and highlighted. But I do, you know, I hear the concerns of the parents, and there are specifics and details to each of the parents’ stories in which they’re sharing with us. And I don’t want to share confidential information based upon the students’ IEP information and so on. But I will talk about our staff.
I will speak about our staff in generalities. So, I know that particularly in Bridge Street School, uh, there were some vacancies in terms of paraprofessionals, BCBA, and which we had difficulty in terms of filling at the beginning of the year, which offset that. And then we also had 30 additional new students come to Bridge Street School, and the majority of those new students had IEPs. And so, there was reshuffling and, uh, moving of making sure that we can meet the necessary hours and commitments to those IEP plans. And, you know, there’s a lot of transition that occurred during the course of our August. We had a new Director of Student Services come on board, um, and working with our principals to make sure that we were indeed fulfilling the vacancies that needed to address our students who are on IEPs.
But besides that, there are also internal issues that we are also dealing with, and I know that, um, this came out in a conversation with our paraeducators in terms of, you know, they have an assignment, they come for their duty, and then what happens is that they are pulled, either covering classroom assignments or covering duties and so on. So, there are, you know, when staff members are out and we are unable to get subs, we utilize our paraprofessionals to help fulfill or to prioritize in terms of where they’re placed.
So, there are multiple factors that are contributing to the concerns that our families are lifting up. We are trying to meet our IEP obligations. We do know that when staff are out, we are not in compliance with that, and I know that our director of student services has been working with families in terms of when those issues do occur, and so there is a lot going on in our schools, and there, um, as the mayor so eloquently put in the last part of her speech, was that we really do need to work together, and this year, we really relied on the resources that we currently have to be able to meet those needs. So, hopefully, this answers your question,
Marianne LaBarge: Part of it. I understand what you’re talking about, but I do, I really feel in my heart, as a City Councilor, of having a family member, my husband’s sister, okay, was born with a disability also, and it was a struggle, but she was educated here in the schools. And never, never even as a councilor, I haven’t heard, Superintendent, of all these incidents happening here, and you were talking, and it bothers me. It bothers me, especially with special needs. Okay, either the Learning to speak English or whatever, okay, whatever. And I want you to listen to me, please, okay? It’s like, I feel it. I feel for what’s happening to my teachers, to our students. I feel for all of us because we’re in a crisis here.
And my main concern, which I want to ask you, is that I heard the mayor, and I know exactly where she’s at. My question is…when the school committee meeting had their meeting, I did it by Zooming and listened, and throughout, was it ever brought up when we had the Covid and about, well, geez, we got this money coming in, we’re using it, okay, to go ahead and let’s have staff? And I think at that point, they hired what, 40 positions? Am I correct?
Dr. Bonner: So, um, I won’t say that that was totally 40 positions used for ESSER, but there were quite a few positions that were added based upon using the ESSER dollars. It was not all totally committed towards positions.
Marianne LaBarge: Okay, all right. So, my question is here, we’re looking at $600,000, and I heard the mayor tonight, and we’ve heard this problem constantly. My question is, if this is approved to $600,000, how are you going to do this interviewing process, Superintendent? That’s big on me here, especially when I’m hearing what’s occurring – with coming in on an interviewing process, which you don’t know yet, not until this is approved, correct? So that you can move on.
My question is, what is the time span between this, okay, of the interviewing process, and how many weeks is that $600,000 going to cover? Is it going to be one month, two months, or three months, or what?
Dr. Bonner: Okay, first, I just wanted to point out, because you went back to our special needs students and our multi-language learners, and this is incredibly important because you talked about Covid and how the ESSER dollars were utilized. But there are so many factors that are playing into where we are now. And one of the pieces is that, I guess it’s about five years ago or so, there was a change in some of our programs, particularly at the elementary level, where some of our high-need students were in specialized programs.
And so, this very significant difference now that we are rethinking that process. And when we talk about the new budget for fiscal year 2026, there’s – our Director of Student Services is really kind of guiding and leading us into restoring some of those particular programs, within the confines of our current budget. So, that’s one piece.
And then now to answer that big question about what can we do, and currently, right now, we’re at the 15-week mark, come Monday. And so, when we do our interviewing process, first, we post for two weeks, but we can interview during that posting time. But that posting has to run for at least two weeks or 10 days.
And so – and then the building principals are the ones who actually do the interviewing for their schools. And so, once they’ve done that and, um, have a ready candidate, then, it’s settling on a salary and then getting the CORI check. So, by the time that all of that is done, that’s about another two weeks. So, you’re looking at literally probably 11 weeks’ worth of work that we would get for this individual.
Marianne LaBarge: That’s quite a bit. 11 weeks.
Dr. Bonner: 11 weeks.
Marianne LaBarge: Okay, so my… I want to add on to this. So, at 11 weeks, going through the interviewing process, possibly 11 weeks…
Quaverly Rothenberg: No, no.
Marianne LaBarge: Is it going to be difficult?
Quaverly Rothenberg: Point of order… No, I’m sorry.
Marianne LaBarge: Is it going to be difficult?
Quaverly Rothenberg: Point of order? Did you think that we would take 11 weeks to interview them, or they would have 11 weeks to work?
Marianne LaBarge: No. She’s saying 11 weeks of working. She’s saying… Let me…
Quaverly Rothenberg: Do you understand?
Alex Jarrett: Councilor Rothenberg?
Quaverly Rothenberg: I’m trying to understand what Councilor LaBarge is saying.
Alex Jarrett: I understand.
Quaverly Rothenberg: Could you clarify it?
Alex Jarrett: But if we can let people speak, and then we can go back.
Quaverly Rothenberg: I’m trying to follow what she’s saying. Could you clarify so that I can follow as an accommodation, please?
Marianne LaBarge: I will.
Alex Jarrett We could… when she is done, then she can…
Marianne LaBarge: What I just heard from the superintendent is that possibly a total of two weeks going through the interviewing process, correct? And then within that period of time, it goes 11 weeks, maybe 11 weeks, right? For the hiring process and so forth.
Dr. Bonner: No, I’m glad that there was that point of order, so clarification: after we’ve done the hiring process, which is probably about 4 weeks in total. They would have pretty much 11 weeks to work for the district
Marianne LaBarge: For the district.
Dr. Bonner: That’s the remaining school time.
Marianne LaBarge: So to me, isn’t that going to be a problem? Has somebody taken this job for maybe… maybe possibly? I think to me, it’s bad enough you’re trying to get people to work, and they’re going to know this is only a temporary position that – they would be told that, correctly?
Dr. Bonner: Yes, we would post it in terms of a temporary position with the potential or possibility of becoming full-time.
Marianne LaBarge: Okay. So, can you just let me know – how many positions are we going to look at here?
Dr. Bonner: Okay, so I can’t, I can’t give you an actual number because I have not had the opportunity to actually speak to my administrators. This is – that happened last Thursday, right at the eve of us going on to our winter break. So, although I have had conversations with my administrators in terms of preparing for the fiscal year 2026 and so, one of the school committee members mentioned that I have a running list or a running tab. Well, that’s based upon the requests for next school year, and it’s not necessarily all of the positions that we reduced or cut last year. Some of them are, and some of them are new requests.
Marianne LaBarge: So this is my only concern here, and I’ll do it quick so other councilors can talk. We’re looking at $600,000, okay, and here we’re going to go into a new budget. Where are we going to get that money? How is that going to be replaced? I hope you understand where I’m coming at here. We’re doing another $600,000, and then it’s going to go ahead into a new year of a budget. How do we put that $600,000 back?” We don’t. We’re not going to have it.
Dr. Bonner: Yes, well understood. Well understood.
Marianne LaBarge: Thank you so much.
Quaverly Rothenberg (Ward 3) expresses confusion related to Alex Jarrett’s (Ward 5) extended presentation of a budgeting spreadsheet
Video 3:25:25
Quaverly Rothenberg: Councilor Jarrett, this is not useful to me. I don’t know if this is useful to others, but the fact that it’s based on projections and not accurate accounting of our revenue is not useful to me. This exercise is not useful to me.
Alex Jarrett: So, what changes would you make to the assumptions?
Quaverly Rothenberg: I would make so many. There are so many places where things are continually underestimated by so much. And I think that constituents have met with you personally about this many times, and so I don’t understand why we are doing this exercise.
Alex Jarrett: Because, in order for me to make an informed decision, I want to see a projection. If we’re changing the assumptions, that’s fine, but then we need to know the consequences of changing those assumptions, which are generating . . .
Quaverly Rothenberg: . . . But it’s imaginary. This is not our real money.
Alex Jarrett: . . . I’m not finished. You’re out of order. . . . the . . . which are . . . not generating free cash, which means not money for capital expenditures and the emergencies that we may need to . . . address during the year. Now, we can talk about generating less free cash, and that’s, you know, we could talk about redoing, uh, upping the estimates of revenue further and with the intention of generating less free cash.
Quaverly Rothenberg: If I could answer your question.
Alex Jarrett:. No, you’re out of order.
Quaverly Rothenberg: Your question was what assumptions —
Alex Jarrett:. No, you’re out of order.
Quaverly Rothenberg: — I would make differently.
Alex Jarrett:. You’re out of order.
Quaverly Rothenberg: I didn’t answer the question; I didn’t finish answering the question of what assumptions I would make differently.
Alex Jarrett: You’re out of order.
Quaverly Rothenberg: Will you circle back when you’re done?
Alex Jarrett: Yes
Quaverly Rothenberg: Thank you.
Alex Jarrett: . . . Sorry, it’s hard to keep your train of thought sometimes. Um . . yeah . . . so that you know, your free cash generation—if we’re talking about reducing that further, we will need to play out the effects of changing the assumptions. And that – I think that’s important, so that we know where we will be in five years if we spend …. spend now . . . and also try to roll it into the base. Okay, I’m done.
Quaverly Rothenberg: Thank you. I don’t disagree with you that that’s how something should be done. I think it has to be done on a stable foundation of accurate data. Right? So when you’re starting from a place that looks at three-year lookbacks — or, like you said, we kind of combine actuals and projection, and then that’s not accurate data — that’s not accurate financial data. That’s what we imagined would happen, which is not what happened. This whole spreadsheet comes out of what we imagined would have happened, right?
We don’t do nimble re-estimating, which other cities do. Other cities at this point in time would have looked at that interest and would have said, “Okay, for this year, the interest is different.” We would say, “Well, we’ve had three years in a row…” That’s what we do. That’s not what is done.
And I just… I mean, the assumption that I think we should be basing this on is the assumption that everybody who came in here was telling us the truth; and that any other time we have talked about $600,000, nobody said, “How is it going to affect the kids?” It’s only when we talk about the kids that you say, “How is it going to affect everything else?” I mean, it’s a values question.
And honestly, tonight, I’m ready to suspend the rules. I’m not ready to just play with spreadsheets with you that are not accurate when people have been approaching you trying to do this already.
What’s really happening here is what I just said: that whenever we talk about $600,000 for anything else, nobody says, “What impact will this have on the kids?” When we talk about $600,000 for the kids, everybody says, “What impact will this have on everything else?”
And that is what the public is hearing.
And most respectfully, there is a very good chance there will be a different mayor. We need you to get us safely through January 2026. That’s what we need.
We need to get safely through those 11 weeks. What does 11 weeks of hardship look like to a child who is autistic? What does it look like, Mayor? 11 weeks. I would like to have one day of dignity for the children in our community.
And all of the parents in this generation feel the same way. We raise our children very differently than generations before us. We respect them, we understand their needs and their hardships, and we understand the long-term effects —
Alex Jarrett: Point of order?
Deborah Klemer: Yeah, I mean, I was… I think your demonstration was helpful to see… You know . . .
Alex Jarrett: Sorry, a point of order would be… um…you think something’s out of order.
Deborah Klemer: Yeah, I think the conversation is going in a different direction. You were giving a demonstration of how the budget is affected by these changes, and you stopped doing it because Councilor Rothenberg said it wasn’t helpful. But I think everybody else was learning from it and seeing how, you know, how just adding $600,000 for 11 weeks changes everything down the road.
Alex Jarrett: I appreciate that, but I think Councilor Rothenberg does have the floor and can finish. Thank you.
Quaverly Rothenberg: Thank you.
We understand the devastating effects that traumatic situations in a child’s early life can have on their life.
We had a pediatrician in here today. If I understood him correctly, he was saying he was looking at the body of an 8-year-old who committed suicide today. And that’s why I left, that’s why I asked for a recess, because I needed to go outside and get some fresh air after that, okay, because I’m a mother of three small kids.
And how many of our parenting decisions do we make based on “Geez, I really hope that I’m setting my child up for mental health in the future. I really hope I’m setting them up to be able to make a living in the future”?
This is a very essential service. This is just as essential as a building roof.
And I have one more thing that I want to say about it before I pass it back: I make a motion to suspend the rules.
Jeremy Dubs: I’ll second that.
Alex Jarrett: Motion made by Councilor Rothenberg and seconded by Councilor Dubs. We can continue discussion. Is there – there is a lot of information that we may need to gather about all of this before we can take a vote on suspending the rules.
Director Nardi: I just want to clarify. So these projections are just that—projections. But they are based on historical data. They’re based on the revenues that we have taken in. What you see here were the FY24 budget, so that we could show you how much they were being pushed over FY25. However, when we do make projections, we’re using historical data on actual revenue.
Alex Jarrett: I just want to say that, you know, I hear – I’m just going to pull up my notes. Everyone’s testimony. The testimony at the school committee is heartbreaking. It is important. It is a crisis, and – but it is not responsible to not understand and have an accurate picture of what – what our decisions will do to our finances in the future. We can argue about what assumptions are correct or… certainly, that’s fine. We can disagree about that ultimately, we’ll have our own decisions about what is accurate to project. But it is important to show that. And I know for myself, I’m going to need to see and agree with the facts of what the financial implications will be before I’m ready to vote on something.
Rachel Maiore: Okay, so first of all, were you done with your presentation? I mean, were you, or did you have more that you wanted to present?
Alex Jarrett: I’ve already… yeah, I put in the numbers that… I mean, I think it could be useful to try to understand what it would take .. to .. with the assumptions as we have, what it would take to be able to roll this in.. . So yeah, I will share.
Rachel Maiore: Okay, because I have comments and questions for Dr. Bonner, but I can wait if you’d like to finish your thought on that.
Alex Jarrett: Yeah, it should be not too much longer . . . kay. We have this back up. So now that we’ve added in both the benefits and increase costs . . . Oh, actually, we didn’t roll in those benefits yet, so we have to… we did the increased cost, but not the benefits.
So we add in 1.8 million, because the 600,000 is already rolled in times .218
Great. And now we get the 2.8 million as a – a deficit. And we don’t have that much left in the Fiscal Stability fund, or we would have 1.7 million.
So that means we need to do an override, really, in the next couple of months . . . an override to be ready for fiscal year 2026. So just plugging in a $5 million override . . .
(long pause)
We have – we have 1.2 million . . . (inaudible exchange) . . . for the future.
Yeah. Right.
So that balances the budget. We’ll have 3.8 million then in – at the end of the year. We still have a little bit of a surplus, or rather, we’re still putting into the Fiscal Stability Plan.
And then we start drawing from it in fiscal year 2028.
(typing in shared document)
Only a couple more years to go here…
. . . Again, we draw from it in fiscal year 2029.
(typing in shared document)
Oh no, I didn’t pull those out first. So that wasn’t accurate.
1.2 million to draw from.
(pause, typing)
. . . did you change something?
Can you hit undo?
I don’t know where it was.
(pause, inaudible exchange)
Yeah, it’s not that big a difference, but we can see that . .
. . . you’re going to fix it?
Okay, and the point, I think, the point is that, would a $5 million override be something that the community could afford? that the electorate vote for it? That’s much larger than we’ve done in the past, and it’s a big question. But, you know, that’s potentially something we could talk about.
So, the last number here for fiscal year 2030…
. . . and that would be the last year.
Director Nardi: Yes, and also, just to be clear, that would mean you’d need another three, at least a $3 million override in FY 2030 or 2031. You would need an even larger one. You’d need it closer again to 5 million.
Alex Jarrett: Right. Okay, thanks for bearing with me while I showed that, and I hope that, you know, you can take that spreadsheet and change different assumptions. I hope that was educational.
Stan Moulton (Ward 1) asks Dr. Bonner to explain the $600,000 allocation request
Video 3:42
Dr. Bonner: I’ll be happy to. So, first of all, the memo at the very first part of the paragraph is the actual motion I asked the school committee in terms of where they came up with the figure of $600,000. I was trying to get some clarification as to – do they have plans for these funds? There was really no clear directive in terms of how that money was going to be allocated.
I have six schools. I have 2,500 students that are all part of NPS that have to be considered. So not having the opportunity to speak to my administrators right away, the first premise is for them to make that decision. They know the needs of their buildings. They will have conversations with their staff and school councils on how to utilize those funds.
So it was me; I decided. There’s no doubt there. I decided how to be fair. What I mean – equal in terms of how to distribute this amount of money for the six buildings. Even during the deliberation of our budget- the initial budget during last year – there were some restorations of different positions in different schools. And it wasn’t necessarily done in a matter – of, um – it was done in a matter of need and priority.
In this case, because the funds were not given any type of specific allocation, I thought that it should be fair, in terms of every building – making sure that they had some say in how that money would be allocated. It was done by per-pupil allocation. So you’ll see that JFK and the high school, who have larger amounts of students, they also have needs, just like our elementary students – to be able to restore some of the programs that have been lost, not just last year but over the years.
Rachel Maiore (Ward 7) asks Dr. Bonner about needs in school buildings and the impact a potential $600,000 allocation in funding would have
Video 3:47
Rachel Maiore: I wanted to take a moment to thank the mayor for bringing this forward, even though, you know, clearly you have reservations about it. I appreciate that. I really appreciate this interactive tool, and I think that’s great. I look forward to, you know, we did a little bit today, but I look forward to doing more with it.
When we did it today, one thing we do know is that we need periodic overrides. That’s just how it is. Whatever we’re doing with the schools or not, we’re going to have periodic overrides. And then we can talk about those amounts, but that didn’t surprise me—that we’re going to have to have overrides. They’re built into how we run our budget.
I think – I am interested in rolling this in. I think that’s a good way to look at it, and I appreciate it. I’m happy to talk about it in terms of a midyear appropriation, but I do think it’s useful to talk about rolling it in. You know, we have to factor in… I mean, the one thing about this interactive tool, of course, is it does not factor in the costs—and I’m not talking about ethical or moral costs, but the monetary cost—of delaying, of underfunding our schools, of having our kids fall behind, and having an eighth grade that went through the pandemic that is woefully behind in reading and math. That is going to cost us money if we do not address it, and that is not in the spreadsheet. I don’t know how to do that. I think that’s an interesting kind of question about how you could… I’m sure there is actually a way.
So, that’s something we have to keep in mind: the costs. We have an opportunity here. We’ve been hearing for a year about what’s going on in the schools. There is an opportunity in front of Council. We don’t get this very often. Our big, big miserable superpower is that we can cut budgets . . . So this is an opportunity in front of us weeksto address some of the harm that we’re hearing about that was caused.
And I respectfully disagree with the mayor that—if I heard you right—what we’re seeing in the schools wasn’t caused by the instability of using school choice funds. I know that caused problems, but what it’s caused by is that we took away a lot of the staff. I mean, that’s where it’s happening. That’s what happened. We cut 20 positions, and now we’re having problems in the schools. That is what caused it.
So now we have an opportunity to address it, and I would want us all to hold this, when we have this conversation, hold the cost of not doing anything tonight or in two weeks or this year. I think those costs are going to keep going up and up, you know, the more we wait.
I’m just going to look at some of my notes. I have some questions for Dr. Bonner. So, do you think that additional funds and restoring some of these positions will help alleviate some of the immediate crises that are going on in the schools?
Video 3:51
Dr Bonner: I can say yes and no. There was a mention of the word “collaboration,” and so even putting more bodies in the school, I still need for the current staff to meet and work together. You know, to be committed to their positions, to be at work, to work together as a team, to be able to address some of the needs of our students.
And so – there’s something to be said about—and I won’t say adding bodies, it’s not just adding bodies – but it’s adding specific positions that are going to be working with our students. But it’s important to realize that just because you add positions back, I still need those to step up to the plate in doing their work. And we find that our staff have been doing that. They’ve been doing that over through the years. They have been doing that prior to this year. They’ve been working very, very hard with the resources that are given to them, with the tools that are given to them.
The key is that the needs of our students are changing. You know, we’re dealing with behaviors that some of our staff have never ever had to deal with. We’re dealing with the stressors of – of not only the workplace environment, but also outside of that. And so our staff – some of our staff are tired and they are burned out, and that’s a reflection of – in our attendance; that’s a reflection of in terms of how we collaborate and work together.
So to answer your question, because I’m not going to say yes or no in terms of how I feel if there is a crisis, There is a crisis. We’re public education. There’s always going to be a crisis. There’s always going to be a need. There’s always not going to be enough. But we, as public educators, know how to work with the resources that are given to us to make a difference in the lives of our children.
And I know that our families— not all of them—but some of our families have been, um, affected this year with some of those cuts. They are concerned about, not only about not only the Now for their child but how this will impact future years. Will they be more behind than they are now? We are really trying to address some of those needs, and that’s through our curriculum, that’s through our programs, and that’s through some changes we’ll be making as I present for the new year.
So, Councilor, I don’t think I’ve answered your question directly, but I want you to hear that, yes, there are needs. But my fear is that- the implications of bringing in positions now, and not being able to continue with those positions, just as a bandaid to get us through the next 11 weeks. I know people look at the Now, but I’m looking at the future. And so the thought is that if we’re saying there’s a need, it’s not just for the 11 weeks. That’s what I’m trying to say.
It’s not just for the 11 weeks. If there’s a need, It’s not just for the moment now, but it’s for the long term. So whatever decisions are made that you would consider – that this request is something that – it needs to be thought out and looked in terms of long-term, it should not be short-term. It should not just be the limit of the 11 weeks—or the 15 weeks, which is really now, what’s remaining for schools.
Rachel Maiiore: Yes, I agree – that I’m interested in rolling these positions in – but I didn’t say solve all the problems. But are you saying that you don’t think adding staff will help mitigate some of the immediate crisis that we have?
Dr. Bonner: Some of them, yes it would.
Rachel Maiore: Thank you.
Dr. Bonner: That’s why I said a yes and no. It depends on what the position is and what’s being used for.
Rachel Maiore: Well, luckily, that’s a decision you would get to make. So, you and the ALT team and the school committee—who are, you know . . . City Council should really not be in the business of micromanaging the schools. We do not get to pick line items. That’s why we have a school committee, eight of them, who have sent this to us. And that’s why we have you and the ALT team. So, if you went to hire and you were having problems hiring, you would not take the $600,000 and put it in a canoe and make it go down the river. It would be a turnback. So, what is the loss and risk in trying to address this, even though we don’t know all the answers?
Dr. Bonner: So, you just brought up another point. So, what if we are not able to actually expend that $600,000 due to the fact that we cannot get people to take these positions? And so the question is – normally, we turn back the tailings to the city. So, the question would be, is there a way where you can allow for those funds to maybe build up our school choice reserve funds, place it there—which is a revolving – which is a fund that we have been overusing and are trying to rebuild since I started last year. That’s one piece.
But we have vacancies now that we’ve had throughout the year that we’ve had difficulty filling. So can you imagine what it would be like now? So for instance, Bridge Street has a need for reading and math interventionist. To be able to get someone to fulfill the last 11 weeks without a guarantee of a job next year would be… I don’t know who we would get, but we have to post first. You know, I’m only making projections about who we might get. But there might be a retiree who may want to come back into working for just the remainder of the school year, who might be interested in working with our students, targeting maybe our third through fifth graders, who have not necessarily had the type of one-on-one or working in small groups with the current interventionists that are at the schools.
Another request that most of the principals, not all of them, but some of our elementary principals would like to restore – their clerical positions that was cut, to full-time. That’s another piece that has come out—especially with safety issues and making sure that the office is constantly covered, concerns about interacting with ICE, which is another concern, having someone full-time in the office
Rachel Maiore: and school shootings, yes.
Dr. Bonner: … working alongside the administrator. So that’s one other area. There is a request for a couple of special education teachers: a new one for Bridge Street, another a restoration of the one at Ryan Road that was reduced. The high school is a bit more of a trickier staffing concern because they’re already – they the students – are already into the second semester. So the classes are set, and the students are fixed. So, the question will be—I don’t know how they would use the funds that were allocated to them at this time.
And then the Middle School… the Middle School was given the opportunity to hire some staffing, and we, some of that staffing we’ve lost throughout the year. We had someone who was a special ed teacher/reading interventionist who just recently put in their resignation letter to tell us that they’re leaving on March 7th.
So, this is a position that we will have to fill. But here’s an opportunity where we can split that position now, maybe make it full-time special ed and then full-time reading intervention. We might have a better opportunity of actually hiring someone with those different skill sets. So, there are things that I would like to discuss with my administrators as we… because I don’t just randomly make decisions. I do have conversations with the administrators.
There was a comment that was made that one of the school committee members says that he was making the allocation, but it will be the full school committee. They’re a full body. It’s not just one person making this decision. That’s important too, as well, that, you know, I hope that they would take the recommendations and from the administrators and their superintendent and move forward. You would think that the building principals would actually know the needs of their building.
Rachel Maiore: Absolutely. And I’m… it’s very exciting even to talk about restoring some of those positions. And I really hope this Council gives you that opportunity. Eleven weeks in a child’s life, that could be a game-changer at the end of the year. You know, at this point of the year, that could change the whole trajectory of a few students.
So, and I hope you get the opportunity. I don’t think you’re going to know until you can get the money and actually post what’s possible. And I don’t… I’m not really hearing what the downside of doing that is, except that, you know, you possibly won’t be able to fill them, and we will begrudgingly take that money back if we need to. But I would love to give you that opportunity, and I’d love to give our children and our schools that opportunity. And that would be really excellent data also to see what, you know, what needs help. And I hear that there’s other things that would help besides restoring positions, but I’m also hearing that restoring positions could help alleviate these fires going on in our schools. Thank you so much.
Jeremy Dubs (Ward 4) speaks about the uncertainties for people with disabilities
Video: 4:02:40
Jeremy Dubs: If $600,000 would mitigate any of this crisis, and the answer was yes and no, but that “yes” to me is enough to convince me that if we can solve any of this crisis now, we should be doing that.
I think that echo, another thing that said, 11 weeks in a child’s life is extremely important and significant. It’s a long time in a child’s life, and especially for students with disabilities— for the most marginalized, vulnerable students— who are being harmed by these cuts. I just think that we should be doing everything we can, and I’d like to thank the school committee for giving us this opportunity to make this midyear appropriation.
I would also like to quickly address one thing that the mayor said about the national uncertainty that we’re in right now. I completely agree with you that we are in a time of great national uncertainty, and I would just like to add to that that – the population of people who are most uncertain about their futures right now— one of those populations is people with disabilities, who are at great risk right now of losing healthcare and financial support from the government. That would completely – negatively hurt people with disabilities. These uncertainties would greatly affect people with disabilities, and so therefore, I think that as a local government, we should be doing everything we can to protect those people who are at great risk right now.
Students, young people, and their families will struggle because of the national uncertainty that we are in right now. I think it’s one of our duties to listen to not only the experts, the financial experts, but also the people who are hurting right now— who are being harmed. We have this power right now to appropriate this money. I can’t see any reason not to do it, and that’s why I would like to suspend the rules and just vote tonight on it.
We can work on the long-term solutions. I agree with everybody who says we should be thinking about the long-term, of course we should be, but the short-term is an emergency, it’s a crisis. I’ve sat here and listened to the council get very passionate about putting emergency money towards fixing tennis courts, leaky roofs, and buildings that are in need of repair. We’ve passionately given emergency funds to fix those buildings. I would love to see that kind of passion put towards putting money towards children’s futures. Thank you.
Marisa Elkins (At-Large) speaks about funding and overrides
Video 4:06:13
Marissa Elkins: I’m mostly just listening and thinking. I do want to say, Counselor Jarrett, that I appreciated your presentation. I have spent some time with that spreadsheet myself over the years. It’s come out at various points, and it evolves, as Director Nardi says, based on the historical data every year.
I think I really worry, and I have said this before. Dr. Bonner said yes and no, and I understand the sort of immediate short-term needs that could be addressed if we could build the spots. I really worry about what happens. The part that she said no about – which is the inability to sustain these jobs if we can’t – and what that means.
You know, one of the things that has always jumped out to me when I’ve been having conversations with constituents last year, and as we were going through the budget process, is kind of what you were drawing out, Councilor Jarrett, which is, what kind of override does this mean? What does this mean going forward? And the reality, and if it were me, I would do the thing that I actually think is terrible policy and not great in terms of equity and would be a hardship on . . . the community, many people in the community, which is to say I personally would vote for a big override. Because that is the only way we’re going to generate the kind of recurring revenue over time that would, um, allow us to keep increasing at the levels that it seems we have to increase, as long as the state is not – you know – is not helping us.
I think it’s just worth saying that we have to be real about that. When I say that I’m willing to do that, it’s purely a selfish level, but there’s the other part of me that knows that in order, every time we go to the voters and ask for an override, we are doing it on the strength of our city, and the integrity of our city, and the values of our city— and the credibility of our department heads.
So I’ve worried throughout this that we have— and I will specifically say that the manner in which Councilor Rothenberg has talked about the override in the past, and that I have heard Mike Stein talk about the override in the past – that members of the people advocating for more money for the schools and even the teachers’ union have talked about overrides, and whether or not we should have them— it’s terrifying what we’ve done to the electoral prospects of even a small override.
And so as I sit here and think about what it means, it’s not just here and it’s not just folks, and those folks— the fact is, we’re in a political environment, I think, anywhere, where it’s going to be harder to pass overrides. People are mad about rising costs, people are mad about raising taxes and inequality, and they’re mad, when, understandably so, when their roads don’t get plowed or they don’t feel like they’re getting the city services that they feel like they want. And we’re the local people. We’re the people it’s easiest to turn to.
So, I just say all that to say that we have one tool in our shed, and we keep leaving it out in the rain. We just let it sit. We aren’t taking care of the tools that we have when we don’t keep the promises we make when we campaign for those and pass those overrides. We don’t take care of the tool that we have when we sow distrust and conspiracy theories and misinformation about our fiscal stability and, and fiscal management of the city. We make it harder.
So when we talk about collaborating and when we talk about what it means to meet the needs of schools and come together, that’s what it means for me.
I mean, so fine. If this council, if it’s the will of this council, decides to pass this money, I hope it will be done with the idea that it would be rolled into the base and with the idea that we’re going to have to work to generate the revenue. And working to generate that revenue means that when it comes time— when Director Nardi and the mayor, whether it’s Mayor Sciarra or whoever else comes and says— and it will come— that we are all committed to doing that work. That’s not what I saw in the last budget season. That’s not the way it was talked about.
And, and you know, frankly, that gives me a lot of pause about whether or not this is the right solution, whether this is the right solution, this is right thing to do now. As for the fiscal uncertainty, I appreciate everything you say, Councilor Dubs. I really would like to be able to meet and address everybody in the community who is fearful and worried about what the future holds for them as whatever member of a community that means they’re at risk now. But it is also the fact that the kind of money we’re talking about losing from the federal government… we’re a blue state. I mean, we’re a sanctuary city on a river in a blue state. You’re talking about really massive consequences, not just to marginalized communities, but to really, really serious consequences if we lose the kinds of federal funding that we could.
So all that is to say… I – at the end of the day – I’m not sure how I have to vote. I’m not in favor, actually, of suspending the rules. I think there are so many unanswered questions. But here’s the thing. We’ll vote. We’ll vote. The will of the council will be what it is. And then, if it’s to suspend the rules and vote again tonight, we’ll vote.
I hope people will live with the outcomes of those votes and know that we’re also in the middle of next year’s budget conversation in general, and that we are in capable leadership with Dr. Bonner and the administrators in our school, and that we are all working towards the goals of working through these issues. I regret that the tenor of the whole conversation has to be the way it has been. Anyway, I was just listening, but that was a lot of words. Sorry.
Quaverly Rothenberg (Ward 3) clarifies suspension of rules & Council votes against allocation
Video 4:18:13
Quaverly Rothenberg: Part of the reason that I’m interested in suspending the rules is, again, coming back to something I said earlier about how these conversations and questions don’t come up when we talk about other expenditures. Like – in the beginning of the meeting when I made my announcement and I mentioned that time when Director Nardi and Allen marched me out of the department head’s office when I had questions, it was because of Memorial Hall. There was $500,000 requested, waiving second reading with really no explanation, just a short story: you know, the building’s falling apart and it’s hard and we need this money immediately.
I was like, “Well, great. I’d like to just know more about that. I’d like to know where that number came from.”
So I called up Pat. He was happy to meet with me. I went over there right away and then he was like, white as a ghost, I can’t meet with you, and they marched me out.
And then I came here and I said, “I need information like that before I make votes. I need to know.” I said, “Are there line items?” And Allan’s like, “Oh, I’ll work on it.” It kind of felt backfilled. It didn’t feel good – the way the explanations were given for that money.
But this Mayor comes to this council with requests like that, asking with her recommendation that we respectfully waive second reading.
The schools are treated so differently, and we all understand that now about this Council. And we just want you to put your votes on the record. We don’t want to wait another two weeks or however many weeks to hear you say no again.
We just want to get this over with and keep moving on with our lives, moving on in the community, and understanding who it is we’re dealing with and how they feel about the kids in our community.
I know you really say that it’s not about how you feel about the kids, and you feel very maligned whenever anyone says anything that insinuates that you feel a certain way.
But you feel a certain way about the financial orders related to kids, and we just want to move it along and move on with our business.
Stan Moulton: Can I respond briefly?
Alex Jarrett: Go ahead, Councilor.
Stan Moulton: My votes are all on the public record. In my three years and two months on the council, I’ve never abstained from a vote.
Alex Jarrett: Is there any more discussion on suspending the rules so we may vote tonight? Seeing none, roll call please.
Councilor Jarrett: No.
Councilor Klemer: No.
Councilor LaBarge: No.
Councilor Maiore: Yes.
Councilor Moulton: No.
Councilor Rothenberg: Yes.
Councilor Dubs: Yes.
Councilor Elkins: No.
Alex Jarrett: Motion fails 5 to 3.
Council votes to refer order to Finance Committee
Alex Jarrett: Okay, so now we can decide whether to refer this to finance or to refer it to the consent agenda of our next meeting.
Rachel Maiore: So part of why I wanted to suspend the rules is because of the immediacy of what Dr. Bonner was saying about the hiring process, and I really don’t want to come back in two weeks and hear, “Oh, now it’s too late.” So anyway, in terms of a referral, if – I would like to know what you would—if it gets referred to finance, I would like to understand what the mission is there. I just think – let’s be really mindful about people’s time and energy. If we’re going to refer it to finance, we need a clear directive about what we’re trying to accomplish there. If not, then maybe it just should come back to full council. I’m really interested to hear what my fellow councilors have to say.
Stan Moulton: Well, I’d like to refer it to finance and have it be far enough out, but before the March 6th meeting, so that we can have a discussion – I’m interested in two things. One is we sort of did a quick calculation about an override being needed if this $600,000 is rolled into the budget, being needed almost immediately, and I’d like to have more discussion about that with the mayor and the finance director, number one. Number two, I would hope then that we would hear from Dr. Bonner about some specific positions that are priorities at that point for addressing the needs that we’ve heard about in the schools that we can put positions, much like you had a month ago, with this number, whatever it turns out to be.
Alex Jarrett: I can say that I agree with you, that my concern is, to me, based on the preliminary calculations, rolling this into the base would not be feasible – rolling the full amount. Is there an amount that is less than that that would address the – some key concerns, that we could discuss about – tradeoffs that could be rolled in and could continue, um, because this is coming from a fund that, if you pull that much now and you spend it, then the balance is less. But if you pull a small amount now, and then you space it out with the fiscal stability fund over the next bunch of years and figure out how to roll that in so that it’s sustainable, that we could address critical needs, um, potentially. That’s where I would like to have a discussion about what those tradeoffs would be.
Marianne Lebarge: No, that’s okay. I’m just saying that I agree with Stan’s concerns, that he had but you just started talking about all that, so I don’t have a problem with that either.
Alex Jarrett: Anyone else want to speak before we go back to folks who have already spoken?
Rachel Maiore: Right, and the line items are fine, of course. It should be the superintendent and the ALT team that would make those decisions. We are not in the business of setting those priorities. And I hear you. I would support any amount of money going to the schools as soon as possible. My concern would be, let’s face it, $600,000 isn’t enough to bring our schools where we want them to be. That’s just true. And so, how do we—how do we… I just want to be very clear, as chair of Finance, what our mission is. How do we go to the schools, meaning the superintendent or school committee, and try to find a lesser amount? Yeah, I mean, I just think we should think on that because I don’t know how to phrase that in a way to get a meaningful number because, from what I can gather, the schools could use a lot more money than $600,000. So, we’re just going to have to think about – while I would support any money going – how do we pose that question to the schools to get some number that feels like we’re being helpful? Let’s all just think about that one.
Alex Jarrett: Any other comments, or is there a motion?
Stan Moulton: Yes, I move that we refer this to the finance committee.
Deborah Klemer: Second.
Alex Jarrett: Motion made by Councilor Moulton and seconded by Councilor Clemer to refer to finance. Discussion? Okay, roll call please on referral to finance.
- Councilor LeBarge: Yes
- Councilor Maiore: Yes
- Councilor Moulton: Yes
- Councilor Rothenberg: Abstain
- Councilor Dubs: Yes
- Councilor Elkins: No
- Councilor Jarrett: Yes
- Councilor Klemer: Yes
Alex Jarrett: Okay, that passes with six yes votes, one abstention, and one no. Did I get that right? All right, and we’ll look forward to an announcement of when that finance committee will be held.