See You In Court – January 2026

Bob Bombast, veteran member of the Nutmeg Board of Education, woke from a deep sleep and realized that he and his fellow Board members were entering the dreaded budget season, when they must come up with a budget for 2026-2027 to present to the Town of Nutmeg.  It has been a painful process in the past, and Bob decided that this year things would be different. 

At the beginning of the first budget workshop, Bob promptly moved that the discussion be held in executive session to discuss “personnel matters.”  Bob explained that budget deliberations perforce include discussion of whether the positions held by identified individuals should be eliminated, and he felt that it was simply inhumane to talk publicly about such matters before the Board makes the difficult decisions on staff cuts.

The Board then voted unanimously to move the discussion into executive session.  Once the room was cleared, Mr. Superintendent shared the grim news that the Board was on track to end the year in deficit because of unanticipated special education costs, and that there was no end to such expenses in sight.  Anticipating that such expenses would continue, he explained, other reductions would be necessary for the coming year, including elimination of both the talented and gifted (TAG) program and middle school sports.

Board member Mal Content spoke up to oppose Mr. Superintendent’s recommendations.  “We are elected to do what’s right, and cutting the TAG program is not right!  We should submit a budget request that includes all the funds we will need for the coming year.  If the Town of Nutmeg will not appropriate the necessary funds, the resulting cuts will be on them, not us!”  The other Board members concurred, and through further discussion then and at future meetings, the Board adopted its budget for the upcoming year, which it then submitted to the Board of Finance for action.  

Seymour Dollars, longtime Chair of the Board of Finance, was not pleased, and he stated publicly that he was disappointed with the “irresponsible” actions of the Board of Education at a time when taxpayers are suffering.  By formal letter, Seymour then presented the Board of Education with recommendations on how the Board of Education can operate more efficiently, including consolidation of HR and IT functions with the Town.

The Nutmeg Board of Education called a special meeting to discuss the letter from Seymour Dollars.  When Ms. Chairman convened the meeting and invited discussion of Seymour’s recommendations, Bob Bombast spoke up first.  “Who on God’s green earth does Seymour think he is?” Bob began.  “He should stay in his lane and just give us the money we need.”  The other Board members shared Bob’s indignation, and the Board decided to ignore Seymour’s recommendations and to wait for the Board of Finance to act on its budget request.

At the next Board of Finance meeting, Seymour and the Board adopted a budget recommendation to present to the Town Council that included a $250,000 reduction in the budget that the Board of Education had submitted.  Seymour was quoted in the Nutmeg Bugle as saying that the Board of Finance had made the tough choices this year because the Board of Education had failed to do so.  

Should the Nutmeg Board of Education have approached the budget process differently?

*          *          *

One must leave the political questions for board members to answer for themselves.  However, the members of the Nutmeg Board of Education would have benefitted from a better understanding of the statute that governs the budget process.

 As a preliminary matter, we note that the Board violated the Freedom of Information Act by convening into executive session to discuss the decisions it had to make in adopting a budget.  Sadly, some budget decisions will affect personnel, but the necessary discussion about the budget is not privileged to executive session.  If discussion of specific positions is contemplated, the superintendent can give the affected employees a courtesy notification.  

Here, moreover, there were two additional concerns with the Board’s actions.  First, if the Board were actually to talk about individual employees in executive session, the FOIA obligates the Board to notify those employees in advance so that they can exercise their right, if they wish, to require that any discussion as to them be held in open session.  

Second, public agencies must state the reason for convening in executive session, and the Freedom of Information Commission has repeatedly ruled that stating “personnel matters” as the reason for convening in executive session is not adequate to apprise the public of the reason for the executive session.  Greater specificity is required.

 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-222 is the statute that governs the budget process.  It requires that local boards of education submit to the town fiscal authority an “itemized estimate of the cost of maintenance of public schools for the ensuing year,”  Through the budget process established by charter or otherwise by law, the town considers that request and appropriates the funds for the operation of the public schools for the coming year.  Once the appropriation is made, the funds may be expended “by and in the discretion of the board of education.”

The indignation of the Board members that Seymour Dollars would make recommendations to the Board on how to operate more efficiently was misplaced.  In 2013, Section 10-222 was amended to include the following procedure:

The [fiscal authority] shall, not later than ten days after the date the board of education submits such estimate, make spending recommendations and suggestions to such board of education as to how such board of education may consolidate noneducational services and realize financial efficiencies. Such board of education may accept or reject the suggestions of the [fiscal authority] and shall provide the [fiscal] authority with a written explanation of the reason for any rejection.

Significantly, boards of education are not required to accept any such recommendations, but they cannot simply ignore such recommendations as did the Board of Education in Nutmeg.

The appropriating authority must make difficult decisions during the budget process, and it is free to consider the other needs of the municipality and reduce the amount requested by the board of education as long as the appropriation meets the statutory “minimum budget requirement,” which, subject to exceptions, means that the appropriation for the coming year cannot be less than the amount the municipality appropriated in the prior (current) year.

Finally, Section 10-222 provides that boards of education may transfer funds from one line item to another during the year, and it imposes upon boards of education an ongoing duty to monitor the budget.  To assure that boards of education do not overspend, the statute provides that they may authorize others (e.g., the superintendent) to make “limited transfers under emergency circumstances [when there is] the urgent need for the transfer.”  Reference to “emergency circumstances” underscores the need to keep the budget in balance at all times.  If a deficit is ever projected, the statute provides that the board of education must reach out to the fiscal authority for a supplemental appropriation, and the board of education may not expend additional funds except as the municipality may appropriate in response to such a request.