The Bridgeport School District Board of Education approved an amended fiscal year 2025‑26 operating budget at its June 9 meeting and voted on a series of staffing items that will reshape central office and school leadership positions.

Board members voted to adopt a total appropriation the superintendent presented as $304,169,933 after discussing a package of gap‑closing measures, reorganizations and potential one‑time state aid. Superintendent Dr. Avery (full name in board records) told the board the district had to reconcile the board‑adopted budget with the state’s final allocations and that the net effect left an $89,000 shortfall before changes to attrition and other assumptions.

The board debated a district reorganization proposed by the superintendent that would eliminate or reclassify several central‑office positions, consolidate grant functions and delay some layoffs for a limited period. The superintendent told the board his recommendations—if implemented—would produce nearly $985,000 in gap‑closing savings (the superintendent said earlier figures were in the $980,000 range and later updated estimates to roughly $985,000 as reorganizations were adjusted).

After extended discussion the board approved a motion to delay the planned eliminations of several named positions for temporary periods: items described in the meeting packet as positions 9, 10 and 12 were delayed for six months and item 11 (a school‑counselor position required by statute) was restored for the full year. The board also voted to approve the superintendent’s recommended additional central‑office eliminations listed as items 1 through 8 in the superintendent’s packet.

Why it matters: The actions materially change central‑office staffing levels, affect bumping rights for principals and assistant principals, and reshape how the district will staff special programs and grants management. Board members repeatedly told the superintendent and each other they could not restore positions until they had clearer, written guidance on new state funds and the mechanics for spending them.

State funding uncertainty was a central thread of the discussion. Several speakers recounted legislative language that created a $5 million pool of state money for distressed districts but tied that money to a corrective‑action plan the city’s mayor must file and to other conditions. Board members, superintendent staff and legal counsel said the district does not yet have clarity on how that $5 million would be distributed or whether it will be treated as recurring aid. The board’s deliberations repeatedly returned to the question of whether non‑recurring seed grants should be spent on personnel.

Board counsel Marcus Anastasi advised the board about parliamentary procedure for rescinding prior votes and the need for a two‑thirds vote when the agenda did not give prior notice. The meeting record shows multiple roll‑call votes as the membership worked through the rescission, restoration, delays and final budget adoption.

Board members and staff who spoke during the budget discussion included Dr. Avery (superintendent), Nestor (finance staff referenced in packet materials), Marcus Anastasi (legal counsel) and board members including Rob Chamber, Andre Woodson and Patricia Castamere. Community members and librarians attended and spoke during the meeting; several board members urged the finance committee to schedule a public process to prioritize restorations if additional state funds become available.

The board directed staff to continue reconciling state allocations, solidify assumptions about special‑education seed grants and report back; the transcript records the superintendent committing to follow up with the deputy state commissioner for clarifying language on the state allocations.