VETO SCHOOL BUDGET VETO

A proposal in Bangor to give the city council veto power over specific portions of the city’s school budget is the wrong solution. There are already numerous opportunities for city councilors – and local residents – to help shape the city’s school budget. If necessary, those opportunities should be increased, but allowing councilors to knock programs out of the budget at the last minute likely won’t decrease taxes and, certainly, won’t improve education.

City Councilor Richard Greene has proposed that the city’s charter be changed to give councilors line-item veto authority over 11 sections of the school budget. Mr. Greene was one of three councilors who voted against an article authorizing the school department to exceed the spending limit set in LD 1, the measure that was supposed to lower local taxes by increasing state school spending.

LD 1, however, is to be implemented over four years so it will take several more years for local school budgets like Bangor’s to be adequately funded by the state.

Further, the override was necessary because the state’s new school funding model, Essential Programs and Services, appears to short-change extra- and co-curricular activities. The Bangor School Committee asked for an additional $416,727 for these programs. Like LD 1, the state is phasing in its funding of EPS. Next year, the state will cover its share of 84 percent of EPS costs, leaving the rest to local taxpayers.

Also lost in the confusion over school funding is that fact that the school department gave the city more than $800,000, extra money it received from the state due to the boost in state funding. Because of the way the school budget must be handled, that money could not be used to offset the costs of extra- and co-curricular activities. So, although school department money allowed the city to reduce taxes, a vote was needed on the override.

Crafting the school budget is a long, involved process. The budget initially presented to the school committee was significantly pared back to meet the city’s financial reality. The superintendent then began meeting with councilors in February about the budget. Formal and informal meetings followed before the budget was officially presented to the council in March. More meetings and discussions ensued. If councilors still did not understand the budget or wanted more changes, they could have asked for even more meetings.

Citizens do not now show up at school committee meetings asking

that spending be cut. Neither are school committee members voted out of office because citizens believe they are spending too much money.

The next few years are likely to be confusing and frustrating for local elected officials as the state continues to shortchange both municipal and school budgets. A line-item veto will make the situation worse.