Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses outreach and tone after narrow budget referendum loss
Summary
After a school budget referendum fell short by roughly 78 votes, board members discussed messaging and attendance at the Board of Finance public hearing, weighing whether to emphasize school successes or warn about potential staffing and program impacts if cuts follow.
The East Windsor Board of Education held an extensive discussion about next steps after the district’s budget referendum failed by about 78 votes and the Board of Finance schedules a public hearing ahead of a likely second referendum.
Board members emphasized barriers to direct advocacy during an active referendum process but said they wanted to ensure the public hearing includes accurate information about what the school budget supports. Several members volunteered to attend next Tuesday’s Board of Finance public hearing and to speak as residents and taxpayers rather than as board officials.
“No matter what, we need to be very cautious about what we’re advocating for,” said Norine, warning that board members must avoid speaking in their official capacity amid the election cycle.
Others urged a focus on program outcomes and the district’s recent fiscal restraint. Heather said the board should “put the focus on the great things that we’ve done,” noting multi-year spending restraint and efforts to limit new programming while maintaining services.
Board members described confusion among voters about what they were voting on, citing social media posts and precinct-level mailings that may have reached parts of town later than others. Several members said they had received reports that anger about an unrelated town solar project had driven some votes against the referendum even when constituents understood the issues were separate from the school budget.
The group discussed outreach options that stay inside legal restrictions: asking residents who voted no to attend the public hearing to explain their concerns, encouraging board members to post personal, nonboard messages to their own networks, and asking parent and booster groups to share neutral information with their memberships. The board’s attorney had previously advised against sending targeted neutral notices to specific groups once referendum dates are set.
Board members also debated whether to describe potential consequences in general terms. One member noted that, because salaries and special education make up the bulk of the district’s spending, cuts would likely touch staffing and programming: “If you’re not touching special education because it’s a mandate, you’re essentially affecting staffing and other programs,” a member said during the discussion.
The board agreed to marshal speakers for the Board of Finance hearing and to prepare talking points that emphasize the district’s academic and programmatic gains while urging the Board of Finance to consider cuts across town budgets rather than singling out schools. The meeting was advisory; no formal action on a revised budget was taken during the session.
Next procedural steps: board members plan to appear at the Board of Finance hearing next Tuesday, and staff will track whether the finance board issues a revised figure to post for a second referendum.
