Letter to the Editor: “The Towns Can Afford It.” The Voters Disagreed

The views stated here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors of this newspaper. We welcome supporting or opposing views on any published item. Received July 3, 2026.

On July 15, Haddam and Killingworth will vote for a third time on the RSD17 budget, this round asking $53,639,170 for the fiscal year that began July 1. That figure remains roughly $2.3 million above the budget approved last July. Before we vote again, residents should look closely at how our town officials have conducted themselves between the first ballot and this one.

At the March 10 joint budget meeting, the chair of Killingworth’s Board of Finance, Annie Stirna, assured the Board of Education that “the towns can afford it.” The voters then answered that question for themselves, rejecting the budget on May 5 and again on June 10. The question of what the towns can afford belongs to the voters, and they have answered it twice.

The Board of Finance then set the mill rate before any school budget had passed. Tax bills arrived built on an education assessment the voters have never approved. Our July payments assume a Yes vote we have not cast.

Then, on June 30, First Selectman Eric Couture used the town’s Constant Contact email service to distribute the Board of Education’s open letter arguing for the budget. The letter describes supporting the schools as “a vital investment,” warns of the “costs and consequences of reductions,” and tells voters that because the mill rates are already set, “a reduction in the school budget will not reduce your taxes.” Town Hall describes that platform as being for municipal use only, and taxpayers fund it. Connecticut law, General Statutes Section 9-369b, bars the use of municipal funds to advocate for one side of a referendum question. Sharing neutral information with voters is allowed. Campaigning with public resources is what the statute forbids.

Taken one at a time, each of these might pass as routine government. Taken together, they show a pattern. Our officials treated the outcome as settled, moved our money as if the vote had already happened, and put public resources behind one side of a question that belongs to the voters. Whatever the intent, it sure looks like a thumb on the scale.

A No vote on July 15 will not close the schools. State law keeps the district operating on last year’s spending until a budget passes. What a No vote does is remind the people who work for us that the referendum is not a formality, that public resources are not campaign tools, and that the voters’ answer is the one that counts.

I will be voting no on July 15, and I hope you will join me.

Eric Nunes, Ph.D., Killingworth