SWAMPSCOTT — District leaders debated the budget process in the aftermath of Town Meeting during a School Committee meeting.
In the first night of Town Meeting on May 20, a proposal by Committee Member Amy O’Connor passed by majority vote, amending the town’s operating budget for fiscal year 2025 to increase school funding by $482,000. O’Connor’s proposal involved having the funds come from the town’s property-tax levy. The purpose given for the increase was to fill 16 staff positions within the district. The next night however, the amendment was nullified after a motion by Finance Committee member Tara Myslinski to reverse the ruling passed with a vote of with a total of 137 in favor and 96 opposed.
During Thursday’s meeting, O’Connor became emotional when discussing what transpired.
“Every year, we try a new way to fight for more, and once again we fail,” O’Connor said. “I’m not sure what comes next for me, but worse I’m not sure what’s going to come next for people who are going to be gone from the district next year.”
Committee members Carin Marshall, Glenn Paster, and Vice Chair John Giantis also expressed their disappointment with the ultimate outcome of Town Meeting. However, Paster noted how the debate that ensued during Town Meeting could potentially lead to a change in the town’s budget policy of restricting departments to a 2% plus new growth increase per year.
The committee’s student representatives Samuel Oubala and Noelle Diehl also lamented Tuesday’s vote that reversed the funding. Diehl, a junior at Swampscott High School, gave an example of how the loss of funds will directly affect her.
“Earlier this school year, we all saw a presentation about the class of mindfulness and all of its benefits. This class will not be running next year, even though over 100 students signed up for it,” Diehl said. “I was supposed to TA this class, and was so heartbroken that it will not be offered.”
O’Connor named Committee Chair Suzanne Wright as someone who was part of the “coordinated force” behind getting the additional funding reversed. Wright responded by claiming the reversal was anything but coordinated, and that O’Connor’s efforts to ask for additional funding after the budget was already approved by the committee went against its protocol of working collaboratively with the town.
“I couldn’t represent this committee without being true to who I am and the duties of the Chair. Supporting the Superintendent’s budget is the duty of this whole committee if we vote for it,” Wright said. “Process is important to having things happen right… we’re not in this for the short game.”
Wright added that she feels additional funds would be more prudent to have next year, as she expects teacher contract negotiations to be expensive.
Superintendent of Schools Pamela Angelakis expressed frustration with the committee for not working to change the town’s financial policy the previous year. In addition, she feels O’Connor’s motion put her in a difficult position as an employee of the district.
“You put the leaders of the district in a very, very difficult position,” Angelakis said. “I worked hard with Suzanne (Wright) and Ms. (Cheryl-Herrick) Stella to push the budget as far as we could. And then being asked to stand up and say ‘I want the money’ when I’ve just sat through 34 meetings agreeing to a 5.1% budget. That puts us in a very untenable position.”
