New London council adopts city and education budgets after heated debate on transparency and fund use

The New London City Council on May 5 approved second readings of the fiscal 2025–26 city government budget and the Board of Education budget after public comment and a lengthy council debate over transparency, fund balance and contractual obligations.

The council approved the city government budget — including a $58,215,597 general fund — by a roll-call vote of 5–2. The education budget was approved the same evening by a 5–2 vote; the Board of Education budget amount read into the record was $47,451,526.

Why it matters: Public speakers including Board of Education chair Elaine Maynard Adams and board member Susan Hamby told council members they had not received adequate notice of some finance board meetings and warned that public allegations and process errors were harming trust between the board of education and city decision makers.

Board of Education chair Elaine Maynard Adams told the council that the board and administration had not received timely notice of a recent Board of Finance meeting and criticized what she called incorrect public statements made at that meeting. “Words matter. Actions matter more,” Adams said, adding that the board must begin a difficult process of discussing potential budget reductions.

Board of Education member Susan Hamby said gaps in scheduling and publishing agendas had left residents and board members unable to participate meaningfully and called for clearer communications. “Scheduling a meeting to discuss the budget for the Board of Education without notifying the Board is not transparent,” Hamby said.

Council debate focused on several recurring themes: whether city and school finances should be consolidated, the appropriate use and designation of the city’s fund balance, and whether the city or the Board of Education should be responsible for ensuring contractual obligations (including negotiated employee pay increases) are reflected in adopted budgets.

Director of Finance McBride told the council that an anticipated increase in state aid did not require an immediate additional appropriation to the education budget because the expected change involved Alliance funding estimates rather than the ECS (Education Cost Sharing) payment itself. “We do not need to make an additional appropriation to the education budget this year, nor do we need to increase the MBR,” McBride said, referring to the state minimum budget requirement process.

Councilor Jeff Hart repeatedly warned of fiscal risk, citing other Connecticut municipalities’ history of overspending and saying the council should expect supplemental requests. Other councilors defended the administration’s approach to fiscal prudence, including the establishment of a designated stabilization fund described by the mayor and finance director as a way to avoid repeatedly dipping into undesignated fund balance and to preserve the city’s bond rating.

Votes at a glance: - City government budget (second reading): passed by roll call, 5 yes, 2 no; general fund $58,215,597. (Vote tally reported by roll call; dissenting votes recorded as two councilors voting no.) - Board of Education budget (second reading): passed by roll call, 5 yes, 2 no; amount read as $47,451,526.

What’s next: Councilors and administration members flagged possible follow-up actions, including the appropriations committee process if further changes are sought and potential requests to the Board of Finance. Several councilors said they expect continued public scrutiny and possible supplemental meetings if contractual or state-determined funding changes require adjustments.

The meeting record shows the budgets passed on second reading; any legal challenges or state-level interventions referenced in debate were not decided during the meeting and would proceed under state statute and administrative process if initiated.